Vol.2 No. 79 December 21, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Clawed
My exclusive interview with Santa Claus was the most frustrating thing that has happened to me since I tried to pin down Vice-president Cheney on the fine points of quail-hunting. It wasn't that Santa isn't a great guy – he is – and his wife bakes pies like you couldn't imagine. It was that Claus is too nice. By the way, Santa isn't his name – it's a title that comes from the word Saint, as in Saint Nicholas. His real name is Claud (not Fred). He told me this was a source of irritation for him in grade school since the guys all spelled it “Clawed Claws,” which was depressing.
Claud was busy working when my plane landed near the Pole, so I was picked up by a little guy in a funny outfit who told me his name was Shorty and that he was an elf. During the drive to Headquarters, he confided there were labor problems due to a shortage of elves. To fill the ranks, Claus, Inc. was hiring dwarves and gnomes for the grunt work. This caused a lot of outrage since only a few of the newcomers could speak Elvish and even fewer elves could get along in Dwarfish or Gnomish. A movement was underway urging the deportation of all non-elves and the construction of a high fence around the North Pole.
Claud greeted me at the door of the workshop and ushered me into his spacious office. In one corner, there was a high stack of letters with a sign marked “War Toys” right next to another stack marked “First-Person Shooters.” Boxes of iPods nudged boxes of Blackberrys, Razrs, Chocolates and iPhones. Most of them were made in China.
The interview started off with my asking Claud what was the most popular request he was receiving this Christmas. He replied this depended on where the request was coming from. The letters he was getting from Third World countries primarily had to do with food and medicines while the ones from the industrial countries generally centered around large electronic products, GPSs and such. Government agencies asked for more accurate weapons, sophisticated listening devices and alternatives to water boarding.
When I pointed out this didn't seem particularly Christmas-like, Claud smiled. “Look, I don't like it any more than you do, but I'm in the business of answering demand. If kids want paintball guns and their parents want cases of bourbon, who am I to tell them what they should have?” Claus went over to the refrigerator and took out a diet Coke. “I've been the Nice Guy for a few hundred years and I'm not going to start being nasty now,” he continued, “Anyway, what should I be giving them?”
I glanced out the window at a couple of polar bears feeding quarters into the ice machine and suggested Santa Claus might be delivering more copies of “An Inconvenient Truth.” At this, Claud broke into a laugh. “Are you kidding? The last thing I should be is political. If I start sending out books by Al Gore, people will think I'm a Democrat and that would lose me Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and most of the deep South. I got into hot water before when I sent out some Al Franken stuff. Fox News reamed me out for not putting in more Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. You can't get people mad.”
“But what about world peace?” I asked, “Shouldn't you push books about getting along and respecting each other?” Claud thought for a moment, then replied, “There's nobody who likes world peace more than I do,” he said, “but it's pretty plain that the people in charge don't really want it. If they wanted peace, they wouldn't start wars. There just was a report that Iran wasn't really planning on making nuclear weapons and you didn't hear any changes in the speeches, did you?”
“As far as getting along with each other, have you been watching campaign ads lately? I actually overheard a lady saying she'd never vote for Barack Obama because she heard he was a closet Muslim and his name rhymes with 'Osama.' Everybody's calling everybody names.”
I glanced at my watch and was astounded to see I had spent more than an hour with Claud and I was feeling guilty. I got up and thanked the old gentleman, but he motioned me back into the chair. “One more thing, Mr. Bogus,” he said, “this is off the record, but I have to deal with all sorts of people, not just the nice ones,” He then gave me ten minutes of some of the most shocking details about entertainment figures, politicians and sports stars I have ever heard. Naturally, I can't reveal any of them.
As I got back on the plane after being driven to the airport by Shorty, I reflected on what I had learned. Santa Claus was caught in a bind between what he really wanted for the world and a desire to please. I guess it's really us who determines what Christmas is – whether it's peace on earth and good will to men or endless heaps of merchandise. Santa's just going to do what we want him to do.
Merry Christmas.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 77 December 7, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Strike One
The writers' strike caught me flat-footed. On the one hand, I was a writer and so should immediately stop writing, even if I didn't write for television. If I stopped writing, moreover, I could omit sending checks to creditors and Christmas cards to people I haven't seen since the Depression. On the other hand, if I didn't write, the newspaper would stop supplying me with my bi-weekly supply of gruel and cracker jack, which they told me is the usual currency for columnists.
Gruel won. I posted a column and sat back to enjoy the spectacle of whole bunches of actors standing there with their mouths open and nothing coming out. That was the beginning of November. Now it's Pearl Harbor Day and I'm still waiting.
The reason actors are still talking is explained by the mystery of re-runs. Somewhere in dark back rooms are thousands of sitcoms, interviews and documentaries that have enjoyed their fifteen minutes (or two hours) of fame and been tenderly tucked away in cans, presumably forever, but are now waiting for another bow. The opening scenes of “My Mother, the Car” are as available as “Mr. Ed,” “The Munsters” and “Cheers.” The fact nothing new is being written is immaterial since the plots of the “new” shows are hard to distinguish from the old ones. Cynics say the same thing about news.
A country without writers, however, means a country without speeches. How can you have stump speeches when all you have are stumps? Sound bites will be toothless. How can there be “gotchas” with nobody to write the getchas? Since very few public figures seem able to put a sentence together without help from someone else, what's left when that someone isn't there? Without the ventriloquists, all you've got left are the dummies.
This, of course, brings us to the unpleasant question of why people with alleged intelligences have to rely on other people to tell them what to say. Bob Newhart had a terrific routine in which Lincoln's speech writer was trying to coach Honest Abe on how to orate the Gettysburg Address - “No, Abe, trust me, do the speech the way Charlie wrote it – it's funny.”
I've often wondered what would happen if somebody put “Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah” on the teleprompter. Would the immaculately groomed news men and women who are supposed to be journalists improvise their way through the crisis, or would they look right into the camera, smile their immaculate smiles and solemnly declare ”Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah?”
The Bogus Economist, not being a television writer, might find himself tempted to become one, cross the picket line and make a ton of money. This is a distant possibility. First, I don't have the stomach to write some of the stuff I use my remote to avoid. Second, I don't cross picket lines. Third, from what I hear, writers don't make a ton of money. The last contract in 1988, signed by writers who evidently had their heads in a dark place, gave them a pittance on home video sales. They don't want to repeat this mistake with e-commerce. Producers say they can't afford to pay any more since profits are down and everybody knows writers are greedy bums anyway. The net result is that nobody writes, nobody makes money and the forecast for broadcast quality is “probably much lower,” as if this is an easily achievable goal. I can't envision television getting much worse without the screens cracking.
One possible outcome from the writers' strike is a decrease in drama and news and an upsurge in “reality” shows, which require little scripting – or anything else, in my opinion. Fox, with “American Idol,” is in a super position if this happens, so I should offer the other networks – at no charge – my own ideas for reality scenarios:
1.“Potty Talk.” People are trapped in a bathroom and have to figure out ways to pass the time until help arrives. The situation gets worse when the toilet begins to overflow.
2.“Ants.” A picnic in the park becomes alarming as giant ants are released by stagehands. Various strategies have to be employed either to kill the creatures or train them as substitutes for the Radio City Music Hall Rockettes.
3.“American Idle.” A bunch of teenagers compete to determine which one can spend the most time doing absolutely nothing. Cots, hammocks, Tempurpedic mattresses and vibrating chairs would be donated by corporate sponsors.
I really don't see what's so hard about television writing, as can be easily proven by the above suggestions. In romances, all you need are a few “I love you's” and lots of groans and sighs. On a “talking head” show, the only trick is finding the right head. “Action” shows demand lots of fake blood and donated cars to be reduced to scrap metal. It's different in sports, where you have to use intelligence, crackling wit and humor:
“Yes, Chuck, he hit the ball.” “You're right, Bill. Look, he hit it again.” “I can't see the ball, Chuck.” “It went in the hole, Bill.”
“Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah.”
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Strike One
The writers' strike caught me flat-footed. On the one hand, I was a writer and so should immediately stop writing, even if I didn't write for television. If I stopped writing, moreover, I could omit sending checks to creditors and Christmas cards to people I haven't seen since the Depression. On the other hand, if I didn't write, the newspaper would stop supplying me with my bi-weekly supply of gruel and cracker jack, which they told me is the usual currency for columnists.
Gruel won. I posted a column and sat back to enjoy the spectacle of whole bunches of actors standing there with their mouths open and nothing coming out. That was the beginning of November. Now it's Pearl Harbor Day and I'm still waiting.
The reason actors are still talking is explained by the mystery of re-runs. Somewhere in dark back rooms are thousands of sitcoms, interviews and documentaries that have enjoyed their fifteen minutes (or two hours) of fame and been tenderly tucked away in cans, presumably forever, but are now waiting for another bow. The opening scenes of “My Mother, the Car” are as available as “Mr. Ed,” “The Munsters” and “Cheers.” The fact nothing new is being written is immaterial since the plots of the “new” shows are hard to distinguish from the old ones. Cynics say the same thing about news.
A country without writers, however, means a country without speeches. How can you have stump speeches when all you have are stumps? Sound bites will be toothless. How can there be “gotchas” with nobody to write the getchas? Since very few public figures seem able to put a sentence together without help from someone else, what's left when that someone isn't there? Without the ventriloquists, all you've got left are the dummies.
This, of course, brings us to the unpleasant question of why people with alleged intelligences have to rely on other people to tell them what to say. Bob Newhart had a terrific routine in which Lincoln's speech writer was trying to coach Honest Abe on how to orate the Gettysburg Address - “No, Abe, trust me, do the speech the way Charlie wrote it – it's funny.”
I've often wondered what would happen if somebody put “Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah” on the teleprompter. Would the immaculately groomed news men and women who are supposed to be journalists improvise their way through the crisis, or would they look right into the camera, smile their immaculate smiles and solemnly declare ”Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah?”
The Bogus Economist, not being a television writer, might find himself tempted to become one, cross the picket line and make a ton of money. This is a distant possibility. First, I don't have the stomach to write some of the stuff I use my remote to avoid. Second, I don't cross picket lines. Third, from what I hear, writers don't make a ton of money. The last contract in 1988, signed by writers who evidently had their heads in a dark place, gave them a pittance on home video sales. They don't want to repeat this mistake with e-commerce. Producers say they can't afford to pay any more since profits are down and everybody knows writers are greedy bums anyway. The net result is that nobody writes, nobody makes money and the forecast for broadcast quality is “probably much lower,” as if this is an easily achievable goal. I can't envision television getting much worse without the screens cracking.
One possible outcome from the writers' strike is a decrease in drama and news and an upsurge in “reality” shows, which require little scripting – or anything else, in my opinion. Fox, with “American Idol,” is in a super position if this happens, so I should offer the other networks – at no charge – my own ideas for reality scenarios:
1.“Potty Talk.” People are trapped in a bathroom and have to figure out ways to pass the time until help arrives. The situation gets worse when the toilet begins to overflow.
2.“Ants.” A picnic in the park becomes alarming as giant ants are released by stagehands. Various strategies have to be employed either to kill the creatures or train them as substitutes for the Radio City Music Hall Rockettes.
3.“American Idle.” A bunch of teenagers compete to determine which one can spend the most time doing absolutely nothing. Cots, hammocks, Tempurpedic mattresses and vibrating chairs would be donated by corporate sponsors.
I really don't see what's so hard about television writing, as can be easily proven by the above suggestions. In romances, all you need are a few “I love you's” and lots of groans and sighs. On a “talking head” show, the only trick is finding the right head. “Action” shows demand lots of fake blood and donated cars to be reduced to scrap metal. It's different in sports, where you have to use intelligence, crackling wit and humor:
“Yes, Chuck, he hit the ball.” “You're right, Bill. Look, he hit it again.” “I can't see the ball, Chuck.” “It went in the hole, Bill.”
“Yabbadabbadoo, Yatchee Watchee, Umbaba, Umbaba, Yah, Yah, Yah.”
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 76 Nov. 23, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Turkey
The most fun assignment I ever had in an English class was given to me by a gifted high school teacher named Elizabeth Force. It was Thanksgiving, 1944, and we were asked to write a story about the holiday from the standpoint of the turkey.
I recall writing about Mrs. Turkey's advice to her son, Tom, on Thanksgiving Eve: “Tom, this country is built on what is called 'The American Dream.' For millions of living creatures, this means that if you apply yourself, follow the rules, work hard and plan for the future, you will succeed. For you, however, the American Dream means that if you eat a lot and put on weight, especially around the chest and legs, somebody will pick you up, decapitate you, stuff you with dressing and serve you on a big plate to people who have applied themselves, followed the rules, worked hard and planned for the future. Good luck.”
These are dark days indeed for turkeys. Millions of people have spent hours dreaming of slicing Tom into strips and using their digestive juices to turn him into calories, but Mrs. Force's assignment has steered me in a different direction. What would Tom, the Bogus, think?
If I were the turkey, I'd probably spend time before the axe fell musing on what might have been. For instance, had Ben Franklin been a little more persistent, I, rather than the eagle, might have become the national bird. After all, I was far more “American,” having been around from the start of the colonies and, besides, I don't eat carrion which in my mind would put me in the same class as vultures and buzzards, including the turkey buzzard (no relation). The only drawback to having me as America's fowl would be in the opening of the Colbert Report.
If the turkey were to be America's national bird, there probably would be a groundswell of debate on state birds as well. There would be a demand for individuality. Oregon's Western Meadowlark is O.K., but why have a bird that's also the avian symbol of Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming? How about being the innovative and inventive state we know Oregon to be? For a state bird, we could select the condor or the blue-footed booby, which would attract attention as well as tourists. Or how about the duck? If it's good enough for football, why not a whole state?
Consider how our menus might change. Since we don't serve bald eagles for Thanksgiving – and it's actually a crime to kill one – it would follow that serving a turkey (if it were the national bird) would be an act of disrespect. This means we'd have to find something else as a main dish for ravenous families. Condors and boobies are also protected species and the duck is a bird completely devoid of white meat. An ostrich has plenty of white meat, but the refrigerator isn't big enough for the leftovers. Ditto for the emu.
Other parts of the country would no doubt chime in with their own choices for Thanksgiving National Dish. Some of these potential suggestions can easily be discarded. Louisiana would probably vote for the crawdad, but the thought of one of these on a large plate, possibly holding a tiny sprig of parsley, is laughable. A Thanksgiving lobster doesn't cut it, ham has already been appropriated for Easter and carving up a buffalo is more of a chore than most of us would want. Beavers are inedible, even when made into beaverburgers. Pigeons are too small.
So how about a fish? The salmon is a logical choice. Picture a whole salmon, fresh off the grill, with orange or honey glaze, served with sweet potatoes and green vegetable. Is this something to be thankful for or not?
So let's get behind the Thanksgiving Salmon. We'll begin with a salmon television campaign, since this is plainly the best way to convince America to do something different. I suggest a Thanksgiving salmon debate, with representatives from each culinary school presenting recipes for the perfect way to cook the fish. By the time viewers find out all of them taste the same, we will have picked our next chief chef. Vote now, complain later.
Next, we should find a number of famous people, from different fields, to be videotaped smacking their lips over a King or a Coho. What being a champion wrestler or auto racer has to do with buying a fish is beside the point, but if it works for bathroom products, cosmetics and breakfast cereal, it should work for salmon.
Of course, this is all speculation. The salmon is not our national fish, the turkey is not our national bird and I am not a turkey, despite the opinions expressed in some of my mail. Folks are still going to sit around a table, carve up Tom (or Theresa), give thanks and get indigestion. After they eat, they'll split into two groups with one sitting in front of a large screen, drinking beer and watching people knock other people down, and the other in the next room talking about the people watching the large screen.
Me? I'm here – in the sandwich. Hear that, Mrs. Force?
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Turkey
The most fun assignment I ever had in an English class was given to me by a gifted high school teacher named Elizabeth Force. It was Thanksgiving, 1944, and we were asked to write a story about the holiday from the standpoint of the turkey.
I recall writing about Mrs. Turkey's advice to her son, Tom, on Thanksgiving Eve: “Tom, this country is built on what is called 'The American Dream.' For millions of living creatures, this means that if you apply yourself, follow the rules, work hard and plan for the future, you will succeed. For you, however, the American Dream means that if you eat a lot and put on weight, especially around the chest and legs, somebody will pick you up, decapitate you, stuff you with dressing and serve you on a big plate to people who have applied themselves, followed the rules, worked hard and planned for the future. Good luck.”
These are dark days indeed for turkeys. Millions of people have spent hours dreaming of slicing Tom into strips and using their digestive juices to turn him into calories, but Mrs. Force's assignment has steered me in a different direction. What would Tom, the Bogus, think?
If I were the turkey, I'd probably spend time before the axe fell musing on what might have been. For instance, had Ben Franklin been a little more persistent, I, rather than the eagle, might have become the national bird. After all, I was far more “American,” having been around from the start of the colonies and, besides, I don't eat carrion which in my mind would put me in the same class as vultures and buzzards, including the turkey buzzard (no relation). The only drawback to having me as America's fowl would be in the opening of the Colbert Report.
If the turkey were to be America's national bird, there probably would be a groundswell of debate on state birds as well. There would be a demand for individuality. Oregon's Western Meadowlark is O.K., but why have a bird that's also the avian symbol of Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming? How about being the innovative and inventive state we know Oregon to be? For a state bird, we could select the condor or the blue-footed booby, which would attract attention as well as tourists. Or how about the duck? If it's good enough for football, why not a whole state?
Consider how our menus might change. Since we don't serve bald eagles for Thanksgiving – and it's actually a crime to kill one – it would follow that serving a turkey (if it were the national bird) would be an act of disrespect. This means we'd have to find something else as a main dish for ravenous families. Condors and boobies are also protected species and the duck is a bird completely devoid of white meat. An ostrich has plenty of white meat, but the refrigerator isn't big enough for the leftovers. Ditto for the emu.
Other parts of the country would no doubt chime in with their own choices for Thanksgiving National Dish. Some of these potential suggestions can easily be discarded. Louisiana would probably vote for the crawdad, but the thought of one of these on a large plate, possibly holding a tiny sprig of parsley, is laughable. A Thanksgiving lobster doesn't cut it, ham has already been appropriated for Easter and carving up a buffalo is more of a chore than most of us would want. Beavers are inedible, even when made into beaverburgers. Pigeons are too small.
So how about a fish? The salmon is a logical choice. Picture a whole salmon, fresh off the grill, with orange or honey glaze, served with sweet potatoes and green vegetable. Is this something to be thankful for or not?
So let's get behind the Thanksgiving Salmon. We'll begin with a salmon television campaign, since this is plainly the best way to convince America to do something different. I suggest a Thanksgiving salmon debate, with representatives from each culinary school presenting recipes for the perfect way to cook the fish. By the time viewers find out all of them taste the same, we will have picked our next chief chef. Vote now, complain later.
Next, we should find a number of famous people, from different fields, to be videotaped smacking their lips over a King or a Coho. What being a champion wrestler or auto racer has to do with buying a fish is beside the point, but if it works for bathroom products, cosmetics and breakfast cereal, it should work for salmon.
Of course, this is all speculation. The salmon is not our national fish, the turkey is not our national bird and I am not a turkey, despite the opinions expressed in some of my mail. Folks are still going to sit around a table, carve up Tom (or Theresa), give thanks and get indigestion. After they eat, they'll split into two groups with one sitting in front of a large screen, drinking beer and watching people knock other people down, and the other in the next room talking about the people watching the large screen.
Me? I'm here – in the sandwich. Hear that, Mrs. Force?
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 75 Nov. 9, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Ring the Bell
Now that we've finished the prelims, America is getting ready for the main event. Each boxer is in his or her corner (all sixteen of them) and all are getting last-minute briefings from their handlers, complete with styptic pencils to stop the bleeding.
Yes, the sparring season is upon us, only a year before the fight. Candidates are pledging to abstain from personal attacks while putting horseshoes in their gloves. Did Willard (Mitt) Romney once defend abortion? Pow! Did Fred Thompson get free airplane rides from a drug dealer? Pow! Did Hillary waffle on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens? Pow! Tell me, Mr. Edwards, is how you style what's on top of your head more important than what's inside it? Too bad about those ears, Mr. Kucinich. Pow! Pow!
Surely there must be something better than this slugfest/auction we throw every four years. In the just-completed off-off-year eBuy, we still had bidding, but the stakes were lower – with the exceptions of the huge chunks of dough sucked up by Measures 49 and 50. To be honest, the way we select our leaders gives me gas. Take the presidential sweepstakes – please.
Our continuing farce of “debates” makes me wonder who could answer questions like, “Our health system in in bad shape. Give us the details of your plan to fix it. Oh, yes, you have 45 seconds left to reply.” Thinking the world's problems can be solved with one-minute answers is one of the world's problems. Assembling eight or twelve people behind nicely decorated podiums for an hour or so is a great way to trivialize the election and further contribute to the epidemic of bumper-sticker thinking that, to some extent, got us into our current political septic tank to begin with. By the way, I'd also like to hear from two or three candidates at a sitting instead of a bunch that looks like a well-dressed, out of shape softball team.
Before we start having primaries, it would be nice to find out – in depth – what each candidate proposes. I'd like to hear how much each of their programs is going to cost and where the money is going to come from to pay for it. I'd like to get an idea who the candidates think would contribute most to their cabinets. This is very hard to discover in the four or five sound bites each person gets in a “debate.”
How about candidates being accorded equality in terms of free air time on radio and television? After all, these are public airwaves. Maybe banning election ads under a minute to prevent 'bumper-sticker”-type arguments? No opinion polls published for a stated time before the elections? Each candidate given spending limits, campaigns to be either completely financed with public funds or taken from a pool donated by citizens or corporations for the advancement of democracy? Why not?
What are the chances of just two election dates – both of them national holidays – one for primaries and one for the general election? Or does it make more sense for each state to push to the front of the line in order to “make a difference?”
Once elected, shouldn't a president have to conduct open press conferences or better, have an open Q&A session weekly with Congress so that the public can see and hear what's going on?
For those who are rolling their eyes and thinking what an absolute dork is passing for a Bogus Economist, let me add that everything I mentioned is – in some form - already law in some countries. In France, the rules about commercials and campaign financing are already in place. The time between their first election and final one is two weeks. Here it's ten months. In several European countries, all political parties are allocated equal funds. They figure having the best government money can buy isn't such a hot idea. Here, we make a contest over who hustles the most dough.
On C-Span, you can watch the near-weekly encounter between the British Prime Minister and Parliament in the House of Commons. Questions from both sides are fired quickly and usually answered the same way. The P.M. has to display a knowledge of a large number of problems with backup facts and figures as well as names of those delegated to work on them. This takes brains. The Parliament is usually packed. In Congress, you could shoot a cannon with little fear of hurting anybody. Everybody's out raising money. On the other hand, I suppose it's good there aren't many questions being asked because there's nobody there to answer them. It's not a mark of genius to suspect some things in government need changing.
As we gear up for the championship bout, we might reflect on what improvements we can still make in time for 2008. Congress could pass campaign financing laws now. It could begin a process to force those holding broadcasting licenses to use the public airways for pubic information prior to elections. It could use moral persuasion to require the president to face the media on a regular basis. A few well-placed letters or e-mails would help. We fight fans deserve the best. Everyone to their corners.
O.K. Ring the bell.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Ring the Bell
Now that we've finished the prelims, America is getting ready for the main event. Each boxer is in his or her corner (all sixteen of them) and all are getting last-minute briefings from their handlers, complete with styptic pencils to stop the bleeding.
Yes, the sparring season is upon us, only a year before the fight. Candidates are pledging to abstain from personal attacks while putting horseshoes in their gloves. Did Willard (Mitt) Romney once defend abortion? Pow! Did Fred Thompson get free airplane rides from a drug dealer? Pow! Did Hillary waffle on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens? Pow! Tell me, Mr. Edwards, is how you style what's on top of your head more important than what's inside it? Too bad about those ears, Mr. Kucinich. Pow! Pow!
Surely there must be something better than this slugfest/auction we throw every four years. In the just-completed off-off-year eBuy, we still had bidding, but the stakes were lower – with the exceptions of the huge chunks of dough sucked up by Measures 49 and 50. To be honest, the way we select our leaders gives me gas. Take the presidential sweepstakes – please.
Our continuing farce of “debates” makes me wonder who could answer questions like, “Our health system in in bad shape. Give us the details of your plan to fix it. Oh, yes, you have 45 seconds left to reply.” Thinking the world's problems can be solved with one-minute answers is one of the world's problems. Assembling eight or twelve people behind nicely decorated podiums for an hour or so is a great way to trivialize the election and further contribute to the epidemic of bumper-sticker thinking that, to some extent, got us into our current political septic tank to begin with. By the way, I'd also like to hear from two or three candidates at a sitting instead of a bunch that looks like a well-dressed, out of shape softball team.
Before we start having primaries, it would be nice to find out – in depth – what each candidate proposes. I'd like to hear how much each of their programs is going to cost and where the money is going to come from to pay for it. I'd like to get an idea who the candidates think would contribute most to their cabinets. This is very hard to discover in the four or five sound bites each person gets in a “debate.”
How about candidates being accorded equality in terms of free air time on radio and television? After all, these are public airwaves. Maybe banning election ads under a minute to prevent 'bumper-sticker”-type arguments? No opinion polls published for a stated time before the elections? Each candidate given spending limits, campaigns to be either completely financed with public funds or taken from a pool donated by citizens or corporations for the advancement of democracy? Why not?
What are the chances of just two election dates – both of them national holidays – one for primaries and one for the general election? Or does it make more sense for each state to push to the front of the line in order to “make a difference?”
Once elected, shouldn't a president have to conduct open press conferences or better, have an open Q&A session weekly with Congress so that the public can see and hear what's going on?
For those who are rolling their eyes and thinking what an absolute dork is passing for a Bogus Economist, let me add that everything I mentioned is – in some form - already law in some countries. In France, the rules about commercials and campaign financing are already in place. The time between their first election and final one is two weeks. Here it's ten months. In several European countries, all political parties are allocated equal funds. They figure having the best government money can buy isn't such a hot idea. Here, we make a contest over who hustles the most dough.
On C-Span, you can watch the near-weekly encounter between the British Prime Minister and Parliament in the House of Commons. Questions from both sides are fired quickly and usually answered the same way. The P.M. has to display a knowledge of a large number of problems with backup facts and figures as well as names of those delegated to work on them. This takes brains. The Parliament is usually packed. In Congress, you could shoot a cannon with little fear of hurting anybody. Everybody's out raising money. On the other hand, I suppose it's good there aren't many questions being asked because there's nobody there to answer them. It's not a mark of genius to suspect some things in government need changing.
As we gear up for the championship bout, we might reflect on what improvements we can still make in time for 2008. Congress could pass campaign financing laws now. It could begin a process to force those holding broadcasting licenses to use the public airways for pubic information prior to elections. It could use moral persuasion to require the president to face the media on a regular basis. A few well-placed letters or e-mails would help. We fight fans deserve the best. Everyone to their corners.
O.K. Ring the bell.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
General math
Vol. 2 No. 74 Oct. 26, 2007
The Bogus Economist
General Math
Math is not my favorite topic, especially since I learned that in base two, I am 101101 years old. Considering the barrage of debate over our presence in Iraq, however, I feel it's time to smother my natural disinclination toward math and do the proper economic thing, i.e. subject the Iraq debate to the intense scrutiny of mathematical models and analysis. Or, as one of my former friends said to me, “Since you need analysis, why not the war?”
The catalyst for this momentous decision on my part came about as retired General Ricardo Sanchez fired some good-sized mortar shells at the media (which I feel needs lots more of them), his lack of definite orders while he was in charge of Abu Graib prison and the ham-handed incompetence of the Administration in understanding very well what they wanted to do, but not having a snowball's idea in Hell of how to do it. He describes Iraq as “A nightmare with no end in sight.” Not bad from a former commander of coalition forces in the whole country.
It is clear, however, General Sanchez feels it would be a calamity to withdraw troops from Iraq since this would result in “chaos,” a concept this column has dealt with before. The concept of “winning” the war has also been written about. The picture General Sanchez paints is grim and he's not the only painter in town. Fundamentally, the argument boils down to a relatively simple problem: Is what we're doing in Iraq reducing the number of terrorists and thus increasing our safety? Can we “win?” Enter the math.
The papers recently have recounted a large number of raids by the U.S. Army on suspected Al Qaida members in various towns and villages in Iraq. Here's one from MSN: “U.S. troops backed by attack aircraft killed 19 suspected insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, in an operation Thursday targeting al-Qaida in Iraq leaders northwest of Baghdad, the military said. An initial airstrike struck a 'time-sensitive target,' killing four insurgents in the Lake Tharthar area after intelligence reports indicated senior members of al-Qaida in Iraq were meeting there, according to a statement...Subsequent airstrikes were called in. Ground forces secured the area and determined '15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed,' a statement said. Two suspects, one woman and three children also were wounded and one suspected insurgent was detained, it added.”
O.K., let's turn on the math machine. First, let's assume all nineteen of the “suspected insurgents” were actually Al Qaida members, although the official statement mentioned only four. Assume our intelligence was correct, however, and there were really nineteen. That's (-19) in mathspeak. Another two suspects were wounded, so let's assume they're also out of action. That makes (-21). Another was detained (-22).
Now let's go over to the other side. We killed fifteen civilians, including nine kids. It didn't say in the report whether some of the adults were the parents of any of the children. There were also three children and another woman injured, The total non-insurgents, then, is (+19). So, on the surface, we seems to have disabled a total of three more bad guys than good guys (-3).
Here's where the math starts to tell a story. The average Iraqi family is numerous, thanks to a system of kinship where sometimes several generations live under the same roof. In some villages, kinship extends to virtually every inhabitant. Using an arbitrary number, it's pretty safe to say fifteen dead civilians represents up to a few hundred other “relatives” who escaped killing.
It's also safe to say the kin of the dead civilians were not pleased to find their sisters, mothers, brothers, fathers, uncles or significant others mistakenly dispatched during an air strike. Nor would they be mollified when told it was a shame, but worth it because nineteen suspected terrorists were also killed.
It's wise to bear in mind here the Arab culture is big on revenge. It's a matter of family honor to even scores, especially when an offense involves lots of members of the family. Since it's almost impossible to find out which individuals actually dropped the bombs during the air strike, it's much easier to swear revenge at the country whose insignia decorated the aircrafts' wings.
Totaling up, this means the air strikes in question produced a net gain of roughly two hundred or so people who would love to see the Great Satan (that's us, folks) get his come-uppance. Call it (-200). Adding the noneteen who might have been members of Al Qaida, the two wounded and the one detained, we're left with roughly 222 suspected terrorists or terrorist wannabees, nineteen of them dead. It's all so clear. We get nineteen – maybe – and they get two hundred three.
Continuing with the math, let's multiply this figure by the number of our air strikes and the recently reported trigger-happiness of the hired cowboys in our private security armies and you might conclude General Sanchez is guilty of understatement when he calls Iraq a “nightmare.” Let's be charitable and say it doesn't exactly add up to winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis. It didn't win General Sanchez'.
It sure doesn't win mine.
-30
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
General Math
Math is not my favorite topic, especially since I learned that in base two, I am 101101 years old. Considering the barrage of debate over our presence in Iraq, however, I feel it's time to smother my natural disinclination toward math and do the proper economic thing, i.e. subject the Iraq debate to the intense scrutiny of mathematical models and analysis. Or, as one of my former friends said to me, “Since you need analysis, why not the war?”
The catalyst for this momentous decision on my part came about as retired General Ricardo Sanchez fired some good-sized mortar shells at the media (which I feel needs lots more of them), his lack of definite orders while he was in charge of Abu Graib prison and the ham-handed incompetence of the Administration in understanding very well what they wanted to do, but not having a snowball's idea in Hell of how to do it. He describes Iraq as “A nightmare with no end in sight.” Not bad from a former commander of coalition forces in the whole country.
It is clear, however, General Sanchez feels it would be a calamity to withdraw troops from Iraq since this would result in “chaos,” a concept this column has dealt with before. The concept of “winning” the war has also been written about. The picture General Sanchez paints is grim and he's not the only painter in town. Fundamentally, the argument boils down to a relatively simple problem: Is what we're doing in Iraq reducing the number of terrorists and thus increasing our safety? Can we “win?” Enter the math.
The papers recently have recounted a large number of raids by the U.S. Army on suspected Al Qaida members in various towns and villages in Iraq. Here's one from MSN: “U.S. troops backed by attack aircraft killed 19 suspected insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, in an operation Thursday targeting al-Qaida in Iraq leaders northwest of Baghdad, the military said. An initial airstrike struck a 'time-sensitive target,' killing four insurgents in the Lake Tharthar area after intelligence reports indicated senior members of al-Qaida in Iraq were meeting there, according to a statement...Subsequent airstrikes were called in. Ground forces secured the area and determined '15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed,' a statement said. Two suspects, one woman and three children also were wounded and one suspected insurgent was detained, it added.”
O.K., let's turn on the math machine. First, let's assume all nineteen of the “suspected insurgents” were actually Al Qaida members, although the official statement mentioned only four. Assume our intelligence was correct, however, and there were really nineteen. That's (-19) in mathspeak. Another two suspects were wounded, so let's assume they're also out of action. That makes (-21). Another was detained (-22).
Now let's go over to the other side. We killed fifteen civilians, including nine kids. It didn't say in the report whether some of the adults were the parents of any of the children. There were also three children and another woman injured, The total non-insurgents, then, is (+19). So, on the surface, we seems to have disabled a total of three more bad guys than good guys (-3).
Here's where the math starts to tell a story. The average Iraqi family is numerous, thanks to a system of kinship where sometimes several generations live under the same roof. In some villages, kinship extends to virtually every inhabitant. Using an arbitrary number, it's pretty safe to say fifteen dead civilians represents up to a few hundred other “relatives” who escaped killing.
It's also safe to say the kin of the dead civilians were not pleased to find their sisters, mothers, brothers, fathers, uncles or significant others mistakenly dispatched during an air strike. Nor would they be mollified when told it was a shame, but worth it because nineteen suspected terrorists were also killed.
It's wise to bear in mind here the Arab culture is big on revenge. It's a matter of family honor to even scores, especially when an offense involves lots of members of the family. Since it's almost impossible to find out which individuals actually dropped the bombs during the air strike, it's much easier to swear revenge at the country whose insignia decorated the aircrafts' wings.
Totaling up, this means the air strikes in question produced a net gain of roughly two hundred or so people who would love to see the Great Satan (that's us, folks) get his come-uppance. Call it (-200). Adding the noneteen who might have been members of Al Qaida, the two wounded and the one detained, we're left with roughly 222 suspected terrorists or terrorist wannabees, nineteen of them dead. It's all so clear. We get nineteen – maybe – and they get two hundred three.
Continuing with the math, let's multiply this figure by the number of our air strikes and the recently reported trigger-happiness of the hired cowboys in our private security armies and you might conclude General Sanchez is guilty of understatement when he calls Iraq a “nightmare.” Let's be charitable and say it doesn't exactly add up to winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis. It didn't win General Sanchez'.
It sure doesn't win mine.
-30
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Vol.2 No. 73 Oct. 12, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Measure 50
Shortly after mailing my last column to this paper's ever-patient editor, I received three (count them) pieces of mail informing me our Oregon Constitution was in mortal danger and I could save it. Wow! Who could be against saving the Oregon constitution? I quickly picked up the first piece entitled “Taxpayers oppose Measure 50 because laws are supposed to solve problems – not create them.” I also oppose laws that create problems. At the bottom of the page it added, “Please join us.” I was ready – who's “us?”
On page two, I was told “Our State Constitution deserves more respect.” Again, I agreed. The second piece was headlined, “Measure 50 would set a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT for Oregon's State CONSTITUTION” (their caps). Here, I found out that a retired professor of law thought Measure 50 would “limit the rights of voters while making a particular tax policy a constitutional mandate.” On the facing page was a distinguished-looking unidentified man next to a caption again reminding us Measure 50 “deliberately evades” constitutional taxpayer protections. Under that, a blurry cartoon warns Measure 50 could “open a Pandora's Box of future tax increases.” Finally, I was told our constitution should not be amended to promote the political agendas of “...special interest groups.”
By this time, I was champing at the bit. Who is “us?” Which special interest groups would Measure 50 promote? Does Pandora have a political agenda? What kind of campaign uses blurry cartoons? This was the biggest soap opera of the year. I plunged on.
My first clue came when I read some small print on the back of the second piece. “Major funding provided by Philip Morris USA.” Aha! It must be tobacco! I looked through the pamphlet for the word “tobacco.” I didn't find it. I went back to the first piece. There it was! On the top of the second page, it said Measure 50 would amend our constitution, a document that “should not be amended casually...,” to increase taxes on tobacco! Right on! No casual amending!
Now I knew who “us” is. Now how about “special interests?” For this, I turned to the third piece, ostensibly written by a a non-smoking first-grade teacher named Ben Matthews. He bitterly opposed Measure 50 because only 30% of the money would actually go for the Healthy Kids Program, which is the title of the Measure. Almost seventy percent would go to “whatever health care expense it (the state) wants.” Mr Matthews called Measure 50 “a blank check that will probably be written to state health care contractors like HMOs, health insurance companies or hospitals for bigger reimbursement payments.” Probably. Possibly. Well, maybe. Or maybe not.
Speaking of blank checks, I found – small print at the bottom of the page – a notice that Oregonians Against the Blank Check (OATBC) provided the resources to help Mr. Matthews share his thoughts. OATBC, I discovered, is almost wholly supported by Reynolds America, parent company of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company. So much for special interests.
R.J. Reynolds, by the way, was among the companies whose CEOs solemnly sat in front of a congressional committee and swore under oath nicotine was non-addictive and there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. They stuck to this story under questioning despite their noses having grown long enough to knock over objects on adjacent desks. After getting off with nary a perjury charge, they promised to do what they could to persuade young people not to buy their products. Their noses by then were sprouting small flowering plants.
I've written about snus, little porous packets of tobacco to be placed between cheek and gum, allowing users to experience the kicks (and cancer) of the stuff without having to spit. They're now on sale in Portland. Answering complaints that a product like this will be welcomed with cheers by kids who realize they can not only use tobacco in school, but use it two seats from the teacher's desk, the butt companies reacted with shock. Kids? Goodness, no! However, Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris, Inc, is also quoted as saying about snus ,“This is a growth opportunity for us.” This is also known as “getting replacement users”.
I realize amending the Oregon constitution to cement in a tobacco tax is something to be careful about, but whether talking about smokeless cancer or the people who sell it, both seem to warrant Measure 50. Airing pious commercials warning kids not to smoke while coming out with flavored snus including cola, mint, and spice, isn't convincing. Nor is Mr. Matthews. Nor is Mr. Phelps. Frankly, I wouldn't believe the tobacco companies under oath - their noses tell me so. The pamphlets said to make up my own mind. I did.
In the eyes of the Bogus Economist, Measure 50 is only one of a set of essential ways to pay for the things we need, like children's health care – or any other kind of health care. Ronald Reagan, who acted as spokesman for Chesterfield cigarettes for years (“Not a cough in a carload”), joined his wife in telling kids considering a toke or two during the '80's to “Just Say 'No'.” On Measure 50, I intend to “Just Say 'Yes'.”
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Measure 50
Shortly after mailing my last column to this paper's ever-patient editor, I received three (count them) pieces of mail informing me our Oregon Constitution was in mortal danger and I could save it. Wow! Who could be against saving the Oregon constitution? I quickly picked up the first piece entitled “Taxpayers oppose Measure 50 because laws are supposed to solve problems – not create them.” I also oppose laws that create problems. At the bottom of the page it added, “Please join us.” I was ready – who's “us?”
On page two, I was told “Our State Constitution deserves more respect.” Again, I agreed. The second piece was headlined, “Measure 50 would set a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT for Oregon's State CONSTITUTION” (their caps). Here, I found out that a retired professor of law thought Measure 50 would “limit the rights of voters while making a particular tax policy a constitutional mandate.” On the facing page was a distinguished-looking unidentified man next to a caption again reminding us Measure 50 “deliberately evades” constitutional taxpayer protections. Under that, a blurry cartoon warns Measure 50 could “open a Pandora's Box of future tax increases.” Finally, I was told our constitution should not be amended to promote the political agendas of “...special interest groups.”
By this time, I was champing at the bit. Who is “us?” Which special interest groups would Measure 50 promote? Does Pandora have a political agenda? What kind of campaign uses blurry cartoons? This was the biggest soap opera of the year. I plunged on.
My first clue came when I read some small print on the back of the second piece. “Major funding provided by Philip Morris USA.” Aha! It must be tobacco! I looked through the pamphlet for the word “tobacco.” I didn't find it. I went back to the first piece. There it was! On the top of the second page, it said Measure 50 would amend our constitution, a document that “should not be amended casually...,” to increase taxes on tobacco! Right on! No casual amending!
Now I knew who “us” is. Now how about “special interests?” For this, I turned to the third piece, ostensibly written by a a non-smoking first-grade teacher named Ben Matthews. He bitterly opposed Measure 50 because only 30% of the money would actually go for the Healthy Kids Program, which is the title of the Measure. Almost seventy percent would go to “whatever health care expense it (the state) wants.” Mr Matthews called Measure 50 “a blank check that will probably be written to state health care contractors like HMOs, health insurance companies or hospitals for bigger reimbursement payments.” Probably. Possibly. Well, maybe. Or maybe not.
Speaking of blank checks, I found – small print at the bottom of the page – a notice that Oregonians Against the Blank Check (OATBC) provided the resources to help Mr. Matthews share his thoughts. OATBC, I discovered, is almost wholly supported by Reynolds America, parent company of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company. So much for special interests.
R.J. Reynolds, by the way, was among the companies whose CEOs solemnly sat in front of a congressional committee and swore under oath nicotine was non-addictive and there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. They stuck to this story under questioning despite their noses having grown long enough to knock over objects on adjacent desks. After getting off with nary a perjury charge, they promised to do what they could to persuade young people not to buy their products. Their noses by then were sprouting small flowering plants.
I've written about snus, little porous packets of tobacco to be placed between cheek and gum, allowing users to experience the kicks (and cancer) of the stuff without having to spit. They're now on sale in Portland. Answering complaints that a product like this will be welcomed with cheers by kids who realize they can not only use tobacco in school, but use it two seats from the teacher's desk, the butt companies reacted with shock. Kids? Goodness, no! However, Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris, Inc, is also quoted as saying about snus ,“This is a growth opportunity for us.” This is also known as “getting replacement users”.
I realize amending the Oregon constitution to cement in a tobacco tax is something to be careful about, but whether talking about smokeless cancer or the people who sell it, both seem to warrant Measure 50. Airing pious commercials warning kids not to smoke while coming out with flavored snus including cola, mint, and spice, isn't convincing. Nor is Mr. Matthews. Nor is Mr. Phelps. Frankly, I wouldn't believe the tobacco companies under oath - their noses tell me so. The pamphlets said to make up my own mind. I did.
In the eyes of the Bogus Economist, Measure 50 is only one of a set of essential ways to pay for the things we need, like children's health care – or any other kind of health care. Ronald Reagan, who acted as spokesman for Chesterfield cigarettes for years (“Not a cough in a carload”), joined his wife in telling kids considering a toke or two during the '80's to “Just Say 'No'.” On Measure 50, I intend to “Just Say 'Yes'.”
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 72 Sept 29. 2007
The Bogus Economist
Betray Us?
After three weeks, I'm beginning to see the head of the line.
The queue started about a minute and a half after a full-page ad in the New York Times, sponsored by the supposedly progressive MoveOn.org, unloaded on General David Petraeus with the now-infamous “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” headline. What the muddled brigade at MoveOn was thinking about, I don't know. I do know the line in front of me featured some of the brightest lights and dimmest bulbs in the Washington establishment, all armed with verbal harpoons.
In front of me, I glimpsed President Bush, who denounced the ad as “disgusting.” Right behind him was noted liberal columnist David Broder, who called it “disgraceful” and “juvenile.” The U.S. Senate, generally a sober bunch, stood behind them, foaming. It seemed the entire congressional membership was competing to find new adjectives to call MoveOn except for the leading Democratic presidential candidates, who seemed to be waiting for their minds to be made up. As the dust settles, there abideth stupidity, insensitivity and lameness, but the greatest of these is stupidity.
The Bogus Economist agrees with MoveOn that some of the figures in General Petraeus' report didn't exactly square with other generals' assessments, nor the eye-witness accounts that have come from the field. However, the sheer dumbness of accusing Petraeus of “betraying” his trust boggles Bogus' supposedly progressive mind.
General Petraeus, as his title implies, is not only a soldier, but a highly successful soldier. One does not get to wear a bunch of stars on one's lapel by ignoring a primary rule of soldierhood: “Never make your commanding officer look bad.” In industry, the same rule applies. The vice-president in charge of marketing who tells the Board that the CEO caused the company's best customer to switch accounts will probably end up carrying a signboard at freeway exits.
Given the gigantic hype generated by the White House, had General Petraeus reported all the negatives from Iraq, including the casualties and the monetary cost, it would become even more glaringly obvious his commander-in-chief has engineered the biggest policy train wreck in American history. Good soldiers do not do this. As for those who remember another good soldier, General Colin Powell, they will recall that Powell went against his own instincts to rely on the “facts” given to him by his Commander-in-Chief. General Petraeus reported positives – like Anbar Province - and soft-pedaled the negatives. So what's the beef? When was the last time you shafted the boss?
It's only speculation what the general would have said if his testimony had come after the Iraqi government became so publicly irked over the private security firm, Blackwater, that it threatened excommunication. Iraqi legislators didn't approve of private American contractors going around shooting unarmed civilians, especially when the shooters were immune from prosecution. Since there are more contractors in Iraq than soldiers, this threat might have slightly muted General Petraeus' claim of “success.” By the way, anyone who has gone camping knows the meaning of “blackwater” (Hint: it's not the stuff that comes from the sink).
Using devices like “Petraeus/Betray Us” is the kind of behavior one associates with third-graders who are developing slowly or right-wing talk-show hosts who haven't developed at all. To discover this virus on the left is a genuine shock. We aren't supposed to buy this kind of thing. After all, those who recall the Right's swiftboating of John Kerry or the attack on the patriotism of veteran and triple amputee Max Cleland, had made it clear they thought American politics had hit a new low. Democrat Cleland, who had dared to vote in 2002 for an amendment aimed at expanding U.N. inspection teams in Iraq, incurred the wrath of his congressional opponent, Republican Saxby Chambliss, who had never been in uniform. Cleland was called unpatriotic, having given only two legs and an arm to his country. Karl Rove was thought to be behind the campaign.
By adopting Rovian tactics, MoveOn established its own rationale. The organization's own site says the ad was “catchy” and would induce discussion, which it most certainly did. In addition, according to my own Backlash Theory, Democratic stimuli provoke rabid Republican reactions, which provoke Democrats to reach for the checkbook. As we're constantly reminded, it's all about money.
Watching person after person in the line lob descriptive verbal brickbats, the supply starts getting pretty thin. I could call MoveOn “frumptious” or something like that, but nobody would understand what I meant, including me. So, after careful consideration, I'm throwing in the towel. Instead of standing in line, I've decided to sit down and write columns like this, ticking off some of my friends, who may disagree with MoveOn, but feel anything attacking President Bush is OK, including rhyming “Petraeus” with “betray us.”
I respectfully disagree. I don't want to share Mr. Bush's blame for the war with General Petraeus. If you want some brush burned and hire Pete to set the fire and the town goes up in flames, it isn't Pete's fault. Especially if you neglect to check the wind conditions. Or don't listen to the fire marshalls. Or don't understand fires.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Betray Us?
After three weeks, I'm beginning to see the head of the line.
The queue started about a minute and a half after a full-page ad in the New York Times, sponsored by the supposedly progressive MoveOn.org, unloaded on General David Petraeus with the now-infamous “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” headline. What the muddled brigade at MoveOn was thinking about, I don't know. I do know the line in front of me featured some of the brightest lights and dimmest bulbs in the Washington establishment, all armed with verbal harpoons.
In front of me, I glimpsed President Bush, who denounced the ad as “disgusting.” Right behind him was noted liberal columnist David Broder, who called it “disgraceful” and “juvenile.” The U.S. Senate, generally a sober bunch, stood behind them, foaming. It seemed the entire congressional membership was competing to find new adjectives to call MoveOn except for the leading Democratic presidential candidates, who seemed to be waiting for their minds to be made up. As the dust settles, there abideth stupidity, insensitivity and lameness, but the greatest of these is stupidity.
The Bogus Economist agrees with MoveOn that some of the figures in General Petraeus' report didn't exactly square with other generals' assessments, nor the eye-witness accounts that have come from the field. However, the sheer dumbness of accusing Petraeus of “betraying” his trust boggles Bogus' supposedly progressive mind.
General Petraeus, as his title implies, is not only a soldier, but a highly successful soldier. One does not get to wear a bunch of stars on one's lapel by ignoring a primary rule of soldierhood: “Never make your commanding officer look bad.” In industry, the same rule applies. The vice-president in charge of marketing who tells the Board that the CEO caused the company's best customer to switch accounts will probably end up carrying a signboard at freeway exits.
Given the gigantic hype generated by the White House, had General Petraeus reported all the negatives from Iraq, including the casualties and the monetary cost, it would become even more glaringly obvious his commander-in-chief has engineered the biggest policy train wreck in American history. Good soldiers do not do this. As for those who remember another good soldier, General Colin Powell, they will recall that Powell went against his own instincts to rely on the “facts” given to him by his Commander-in-Chief. General Petraeus reported positives – like Anbar Province - and soft-pedaled the negatives. So what's the beef? When was the last time you shafted the boss?
It's only speculation what the general would have said if his testimony had come after the Iraqi government became so publicly irked over the private security firm, Blackwater, that it threatened excommunication. Iraqi legislators didn't approve of private American contractors going around shooting unarmed civilians, especially when the shooters were immune from prosecution. Since there are more contractors in Iraq than soldiers, this threat might have slightly muted General Petraeus' claim of “success.” By the way, anyone who has gone camping knows the meaning of “blackwater” (Hint: it's not the stuff that comes from the sink).
Using devices like “Petraeus/Betray Us” is the kind of behavior one associates with third-graders who are developing slowly or right-wing talk-show hosts who haven't developed at all. To discover this virus on the left is a genuine shock. We aren't supposed to buy this kind of thing. After all, those who recall the Right's swiftboating of John Kerry or the attack on the patriotism of veteran and triple amputee Max Cleland, had made it clear they thought American politics had hit a new low. Democrat Cleland, who had dared to vote in 2002 for an amendment aimed at expanding U.N. inspection teams in Iraq, incurred the wrath of his congressional opponent, Republican Saxby Chambliss, who had never been in uniform. Cleland was called unpatriotic, having given only two legs and an arm to his country. Karl Rove was thought to be behind the campaign.
By adopting Rovian tactics, MoveOn established its own rationale. The organization's own site says the ad was “catchy” and would induce discussion, which it most certainly did. In addition, according to my own Backlash Theory, Democratic stimuli provoke rabid Republican reactions, which provoke Democrats to reach for the checkbook. As we're constantly reminded, it's all about money.
Watching person after person in the line lob descriptive verbal brickbats, the supply starts getting pretty thin. I could call MoveOn “frumptious” or something like that, but nobody would understand what I meant, including me. So, after careful consideration, I'm throwing in the towel. Instead of standing in line, I've decided to sit down and write columns like this, ticking off some of my friends, who may disagree with MoveOn, but feel anything attacking President Bush is OK, including rhyming “Petraeus” with “betray us.”
I respectfully disagree. I don't want to share Mr. Bush's blame for the war with General Petraeus. If you want some brush burned and hire Pete to set the fire and the town goes up in flames, it isn't Pete's fault. Especially if you neglect to check the wind conditions. Or don't listen to the fire marshalls. Or don't understand fires.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 71 Sept. 14, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Lessons
School is starting and the air is full of lessons. For one, the Muslim Holy Month of Ramadan and the Jewish High Holy Days begin at the same time this year, which may mean Somebody is trying to tell us something. Americans learned a lesson from Senator Larry Craig of Idaho: tapping your toes doesn't necessarily make you a dancer. There will still be Snow jobs after Tony. Lots of lessons.
The Bogus Economist, for one, realized with a start that the first Christmas merchandise is appearing in stores. Learning this lesson meant he should get busy looking around at the stuff marketers have decided we can't, or shouldn't, live without this season.
Whereas in the past, I have concentrated on The Sharper Image as headquarters of supreme triviality in the gift department, this year I've expanded my horizons, thanks to a catalog I picked up on a plane trip from Boston to Portland. This catalog, called Sky Mall, couples Sharper Image with other competing stuff-mongers producing a compendium of merchandise anyone with a bundle of money and a small warehouse would die for. I have selected only a small, representative sample.
I shall begin with stuff for dogs since our furry friends have been in the news a lot lately. Football mega-star Michael Vick , for instance, loves dogs. Dead or alive. Another dog-lover was hotel magnate Leona (“Only the little people pay taxes”) Helmsley who managed to die with four to eight billion dollars, twelve million of which went to her dog, Trouble. The catch is the dog will eventually have to be buried in Mrs. Helmsley's 1300 square-foot $1.4 million mausoleum. Spending eternity with Leona, who was widely known as the Queen of Mean, might not be worth it.
Sky Mall also loves dogs. I saw several ads for spray-on products to prevent dogs from jumping on beds or couches and vacuums to get rid of the dog hair when those sprays fail. However, I also saw a Pet Staircase that “helps pets to climb to furniture otherwise difficult for them to reach” and another device that will “make it easier for your dog to get up on the bed.” Up, Rover. Down, Rover. Or Fido, especially when spelled Phydeaux.
An ad for the “Million-Germ-Eliminating Travel Toothbrush Sanitizer” (Page 42) claims this tool will get rid of “up to 99% of the millions of germs that can accumulate on your toothbrush.” Don't even think about buying it. Anyone who knows math can tell you if a billion or so streptococci or listeria happens to land on your bristles, there will still be several million getting away scot-free and they'll be the ones who really have it in for you.
The Voice Recognition Grocery List Organizer, on the other hand, can handle “over 2500 food, beverage, household, beauty and office items and recognizes words as specific as swordfish, emory boards and lawn bags.” Anything that could allow a person to shop for, say, a lawn bag full of swordfish filing their nails can't be faulted as missing a thing.
What really struck me as puzzling in the catalog is the flying alarm clock. For those who don't believe anybody would actually spend time inventing anything like this, I shall quote from page thirty-eight: “This digital alarm clock launches a rotor into the air that flies around the room as the alarm sounds, hovering up to 9' in the air and will not cease ringing until the rotor is returned to the alarm clock base, compelling even the most stubborn sleepers to get out of bed on time.” If someone ever gave me one of these, I should probably sneak into his home and put itching powder in his underwear drawer. Why any sane human being would want flying rotors in his bedroom eludes me. I might be tempted to keep a loaded shotgun under my pillow so I could shoot it down.
Another brainstorm (page 41) is “an alarm clock that rolls away and hides when you hit its snooze button, and it continues to emit a random pattern of beeps and flashes, encouraging drowsy sleepers to seek it out in order to shut it off.” Just to make the point unmistakable, the copy assures us the clock has “two rubber wheels that allow it to roll off your nightstand from a height of 2' when it sounds its alarm, so there is no mistaking that it is time to get up.” There will also be no mistaking the language used in describing the product. If you don't mind finding yourself in an embarrassing position trying to find a clock that's hiding under the bed, you shouldn't miss this one. I'd give a week's pay to see Dick Cheney looking for his. Make it two weeks'.
I envy kids learning lessons this year. I hope most of them will be in school. I hope they think up incredibly hard questions to ask their teachers and the teachers go home and realize how lucky they are to have kids asking them. Above all, I hope they'll learn to be good citizens.
Maybe the kids will pass it on to our leaders. They need all the lessons they can get.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Lessons
School is starting and the air is full of lessons. For one, the Muslim Holy Month of Ramadan and the Jewish High Holy Days begin at the same time this year, which may mean Somebody is trying to tell us something. Americans learned a lesson from Senator Larry Craig of Idaho: tapping your toes doesn't necessarily make you a dancer. There will still be Snow jobs after Tony. Lots of lessons.
The Bogus Economist, for one, realized with a start that the first Christmas merchandise is appearing in stores. Learning this lesson meant he should get busy looking around at the stuff marketers have decided we can't, or shouldn't, live without this season.
Whereas in the past, I have concentrated on The Sharper Image as headquarters of supreme triviality in the gift department, this year I've expanded my horizons, thanks to a catalog I picked up on a plane trip from Boston to Portland. This catalog, called Sky Mall, couples Sharper Image with other competing stuff-mongers producing a compendium of merchandise anyone with a bundle of money and a small warehouse would die for. I have selected only a small, representative sample.
I shall begin with stuff for dogs since our furry friends have been in the news a lot lately. Football mega-star Michael Vick , for instance, loves dogs. Dead or alive. Another dog-lover was hotel magnate Leona (“Only the little people pay taxes”) Helmsley who managed to die with four to eight billion dollars, twelve million of which went to her dog, Trouble. The catch is the dog will eventually have to be buried in Mrs. Helmsley's 1300 square-foot $1.4 million mausoleum. Spending eternity with Leona, who was widely known as the Queen of Mean, might not be worth it.
Sky Mall also loves dogs. I saw several ads for spray-on products to prevent dogs from jumping on beds or couches and vacuums to get rid of the dog hair when those sprays fail. However, I also saw a Pet Staircase that “helps pets to climb to furniture otherwise difficult for them to reach” and another device that will “make it easier for your dog to get up on the bed.” Up, Rover. Down, Rover. Or Fido, especially when spelled Phydeaux.
An ad for the “Million-Germ-Eliminating Travel Toothbrush Sanitizer” (Page 42) claims this tool will get rid of “up to 99% of the millions of germs that can accumulate on your toothbrush.” Don't even think about buying it. Anyone who knows math can tell you if a billion or so streptococci or listeria happens to land on your bristles, there will still be several million getting away scot-free and they'll be the ones who really have it in for you.
The Voice Recognition Grocery List Organizer, on the other hand, can handle “over 2500 food, beverage, household, beauty and office items and recognizes words as specific as swordfish, emory boards and lawn bags.” Anything that could allow a person to shop for, say, a lawn bag full of swordfish filing their nails can't be faulted as missing a thing.
What really struck me as puzzling in the catalog is the flying alarm clock. For those who don't believe anybody would actually spend time inventing anything like this, I shall quote from page thirty-eight: “This digital alarm clock launches a rotor into the air that flies around the room as the alarm sounds, hovering up to 9' in the air and will not cease ringing until the rotor is returned to the alarm clock base, compelling even the most stubborn sleepers to get out of bed on time.” If someone ever gave me one of these, I should probably sneak into his home and put itching powder in his underwear drawer. Why any sane human being would want flying rotors in his bedroom eludes me. I might be tempted to keep a loaded shotgun under my pillow so I could shoot it down.
Another brainstorm (page 41) is “an alarm clock that rolls away and hides when you hit its snooze button, and it continues to emit a random pattern of beeps and flashes, encouraging drowsy sleepers to seek it out in order to shut it off.” Just to make the point unmistakable, the copy assures us the clock has “two rubber wheels that allow it to roll off your nightstand from a height of 2' when it sounds its alarm, so there is no mistaking that it is time to get up.” There will also be no mistaking the language used in describing the product. If you don't mind finding yourself in an embarrassing position trying to find a clock that's hiding under the bed, you shouldn't miss this one. I'd give a week's pay to see Dick Cheney looking for his. Make it two weeks'.
I envy kids learning lessons this year. I hope most of them will be in school. I hope they think up incredibly hard questions to ask their teachers and the teachers go home and realize how lucky they are to have kids asking them. Above all, I hope they'll learn to be good citizens.
Maybe the kids will pass it on to our leaders. They need all the lessons they can get.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 70 Aug. 31, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Iraq, Again
Ramadan, which begins on September 13 this year, is the holiest month in the Islamic calendar. During Ramadan, pious Muslims are required to abstain from eating, drinking, sex or anything else that might distract them from their most important task – worship. From sunup until sundown, followers of the Prophet are told to concentrate on those less fortunate, meditate and pray. So why is a paragraph on Ramadan showing up in a column like this one?
Funny you should ask. The Bogus Economist has had his knickers in a twist over Iraq ever since we were presented with the Al Qaeda/WMD fairy tale over four years ago. Now, America generally has ceased to believe anything coming out of Washington, more than 3600 American lives have been lost and a half trillion dollars has streamed down a gleefully profit-infested rathole. Congress, finally awakened from its perk-induced slumber, is asking annoying questions and at least a dozen resolutions are brewing aimed at getting us the heck out of where we shouldn't be in the first place. As I write, almost everyone who is running for President – and many who are not – are presenting their ideas for salvaging what we can from the wreckage of Mr. Bush's foreign policy.
To assure my place in line, I herewith present another of my Bogus Solutions (BS) , this time to the dilemma over ending our participation in the Iraq civil war (which didn't exist until somebody finally informed the White House) and concentrate instead on fighting Al Qaeda (which wasn't there when we invaded, but is now present in force).
I suggest it might be time for us to take advantage of the holiday when ALL Muslims are called upon to unite – Ramadan – by presenting a plan in which, while followers of the Prophet observe the Holy Month, American troops begin an orderly process of withdrawal.
In return, with the cooperation of devout religious figures from both the Sunni and Shia factions, a nation-wide cease-fire would commence on the first day of Ramadan. Medical supplies and emergency food would remain in place as an offer of humanitarian assistance to Iraq's duly elected government. If the Iraqis couldn't provide such a government, we could offer the supplies to the Red Crescent, the Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross. Violence against the redeployed troops would stop the withdrawal. Since virtually everybody in the region has indicated a preference for us to go home, most people might be more than happy to stop killing anybody until we left.
The advantage of this scheme should be obvious. Since we are currently regarded not just by Iraqis, but by almost all residents of the Middle East, as anti-Islam, withdrawal during Ramadan would indicate a respect for Islamic tradition. The gifts of food and medical supplies, furthermore, would show us to be in accord with the Islamic duty to provide for the poor and needy.
As for the possibility that chaos would descend if we pulled out, it's unkind but true to point out since Mr. Bush decided to shift our attention from going after bin-Laden in Afghanistan to bringing democracy to oil-loaded Iraq, the number of Iraqi civilians seeking shelter in other countries has swelled to over two million– the third greatest exodus of refugees in history. An entire generation of Iraqi children has been deprived of education. Some estimates give the number of Iraqi dead as half a million. Electricity and power are only occasional. Medical care is scarce and getting scarcer as doctors and nurses flee to other countries. The Iraqi parliament took August off. And we're worried about “chaos?”
It was our near-total ignorance of this part of the world that partially resulted in how we're regarded by our “friends” as well as our enemies today. A bumper sticker I saw recently said, “What a shame stupidity isn't painful.” If it were, the screams from our Washington leadership might have alerted us before this mess started.
Sure, my idea about Ramadan may be silly, but it's better than some. I think the best plan so far is Senator Joe Biden's proposal to partition Iraq into Kurdish, Sunni and Shia “states” with a loose central government to bind them together, much as some of our Founding Fathers envisioned the United States. Our two political parties, however, are too busy carrying on the vendetta we call politics to worry about little things like stopping the war until they can figure out a way to get credit for it.
So the Bogus Solution (BS), among many, will sink into the quicksand of obscurity and we'll be treated to lots of speeches, denunciations, posturings, resolutions, counter-resolutions, proposals, counter-proposals, filibusters and accusations until we either come to our senses by ourselves or elect some genuine leaders who will knock our heads together until we do.
When the history books are written – as I hope they will be – the Iraq invasion may stand as the greatest boo-boo America ever made. I feel sorry for the next person we put in the White House who has to try fixing it. As our hardly mourned former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once said, “It's going to be a long slog.”
And this, readers, is no B.S.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Iraq, Again
Ramadan, which begins on September 13 this year, is the holiest month in the Islamic calendar. During Ramadan, pious Muslims are required to abstain from eating, drinking, sex or anything else that might distract them from their most important task – worship. From sunup until sundown, followers of the Prophet are told to concentrate on those less fortunate, meditate and pray. So why is a paragraph on Ramadan showing up in a column like this one?
Funny you should ask. The Bogus Economist has had his knickers in a twist over Iraq ever since we were presented with the Al Qaeda/WMD fairy tale over four years ago. Now, America generally has ceased to believe anything coming out of Washington, more than 3600 American lives have been lost and a half trillion dollars has streamed down a gleefully profit-infested rathole. Congress, finally awakened from its perk-induced slumber, is asking annoying questions and at least a dozen resolutions are brewing aimed at getting us the heck out of where we shouldn't be in the first place. As I write, almost everyone who is running for President – and many who are not – are presenting their ideas for salvaging what we can from the wreckage of Mr. Bush's foreign policy.
To assure my place in line, I herewith present another of my Bogus Solutions (BS) , this time to the dilemma over ending our participation in the Iraq civil war (which didn't exist until somebody finally informed the White House) and concentrate instead on fighting Al Qaeda (which wasn't there when we invaded, but is now present in force).
I suggest it might be time for us to take advantage of the holiday when ALL Muslims are called upon to unite – Ramadan – by presenting a plan in which, while followers of the Prophet observe the Holy Month, American troops begin an orderly process of withdrawal.
In return, with the cooperation of devout religious figures from both the Sunni and Shia factions, a nation-wide cease-fire would commence on the first day of Ramadan. Medical supplies and emergency food would remain in place as an offer of humanitarian assistance to Iraq's duly elected government. If the Iraqis couldn't provide such a government, we could offer the supplies to the Red Crescent, the Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross. Violence against the redeployed troops would stop the withdrawal. Since virtually everybody in the region has indicated a preference for us to go home, most people might be more than happy to stop killing anybody until we left.
The advantage of this scheme should be obvious. Since we are currently regarded not just by Iraqis, but by almost all residents of the Middle East, as anti-Islam, withdrawal during Ramadan would indicate a respect for Islamic tradition. The gifts of food and medical supplies, furthermore, would show us to be in accord with the Islamic duty to provide for the poor and needy.
As for the possibility that chaos would descend if we pulled out, it's unkind but true to point out since Mr. Bush decided to shift our attention from going after bin-Laden in Afghanistan to bringing democracy to oil-loaded Iraq, the number of Iraqi civilians seeking shelter in other countries has swelled to over two million– the third greatest exodus of refugees in history. An entire generation of Iraqi children has been deprived of education. Some estimates give the number of Iraqi dead as half a million. Electricity and power are only occasional. Medical care is scarce and getting scarcer as doctors and nurses flee to other countries. The Iraqi parliament took August off. And we're worried about “chaos?”
It was our near-total ignorance of this part of the world that partially resulted in how we're regarded by our “friends” as well as our enemies today. A bumper sticker I saw recently said, “What a shame stupidity isn't painful.” If it were, the screams from our Washington leadership might have alerted us before this mess started.
Sure, my idea about Ramadan may be silly, but it's better than some. I think the best plan so far is Senator Joe Biden's proposal to partition Iraq into Kurdish, Sunni and Shia “states” with a loose central government to bind them together, much as some of our Founding Fathers envisioned the United States. Our two political parties, however, are too busy carrying on the vendetta we call politics to worry about little things like stopping the war until they can figure out a way to get credit for it.
So the Bogus Solution (BS), among many, will sink into the quicksand of obscurity and we'll be treated to lots of speeches, denunciations, posturings, resolutions, counter-resolutions, proposals, counter-proposals, filibusters and accusations until we either come to our senses by ourselves or elect some genuine leaders who will knock our heads together until we do.
When the history books are written – as I hope they will be – the Iraq invasion may stand as the greatest boo-boo America ever made. I feel sorry for the next person we put in the White House who has to try fixing it. As our hardly mourned former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once said, “It's going to be a long slog.”
And this, readers, is no B.S.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Vol. 2 No. 69 August 17, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Con Me(n)?
It 's a good thing The Bogus Economist gave up his garden (inside joke here). If he were still battling moles and dandelions, he couldn't explain to his countless readers the intricacies of the sub-prime market and the resultant worldwide semi-meltdown or the ins and outs of what victims call “Ponzi Schemes” and what the bunco squad calls Ponzis. Let's start with these.
In a front page story, the Willamette Week recently regaled readers with the tale of Wes Rhodes, an affable 63 year-old who is accused of separating roughly sixty investors from over twenty-four million dollars over a seven-year period. The method was tried and true, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission: Mr. Rhodes allegedly ran a classic Ponzi scheme.
For those who have never heard of Ponzis, they were named after a charming Italian immigrant named Charles Ponzi, who later earned a reputation as one of the great swindlers of all time. The way it works is getting lots of people to “invest” money, which is then used to pay dividends to those who have already “invested.” The operator uses the excess to have fun. By the time the money runs out, the last people on board get zilch and the operator is sunning himself on the Riviera.
“Sub-prime” loans, as opposed to Ponzis, are legal, although God knows why. Sub-primes come about when avaricious lenders, using a novel approach to free enterprise, make money available to folks whose credit-worthiness depends upon their ability to inhale and exhale. The lenders get the signatures on the dotted line, sell the loans to banks and mortgage companies and use the proceeds to make more pixie dust loans. Since for a long time home prices were going up, up, and up, people who didn't believe in gravity fueled the frenzy. Now that Newton is chuckling, “See, I told you so,” the frenzy is going in the opposite direction. Billions of dollars have vanished and lots of people don't have homes anymore.
Sub-prime borrowers and Ponzi victims have one major thing in common – for one reason or another, something overwhelmed good old common sense. Maybe they were conditioned by the number of “free” items being hawked in grocery stores, furniture establishments, magazines, media, electronic advertising and billboards. Everybody has been trained to think in terms of Something For Nothing. Whether we're talking about toilet paper rolls or national politics, we are told not to think in terms of what something costs, but of what we can get FREE if we just sign (or vote) here. Another factor is our growing inability to distinguish between what's real and what we want to think is real. Many folks refuse to believe John Wayne never served in the military or Saddam Hussein didn't attack the World Trade Center. We look for the pros, but not the cons. We see what we want to see.
Look at the “investors” who trusted their savings to Mr. Rhodes. These are not stupid people. They are primarily middle-class businessmen and women who wanted to feel their money was safe while earning incredible dividends, which were duly reported to them in monthly statements, says the WW. As long as the totals kept rising nicely, few “investors” asked questions about where the money was being parked. They saw the pros – not the cons.
As for the folks who thought they could get a 110% loan for a house while only having to fork over a small monthly payment after putting nothing down, we might reflect when people have been conditioned by million-dollar ads to think in terms of Something for Nothing, it's not unnatural to apply this to the American dream of owning a home. Regulators who were supposed to guard against excess were out to lunch. This is not to excuse buyers ignoring the cons. When you play the slot machines to win, you've got to realize you can also lose. For every person who bought what they hoped would be a secure future, there was a person who thought he was going to make a killing and become another Donald Trump. American dream or American greed, the rewards- and penalties – turned out to be the same.
Right now, the biggest difference in outcome is between the people who took the bait and the people who set the hooks. Some of the companies that profited most handsomely from “sub-prime” deals have already ducked into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. It's not unusual to want the scammers to feel as much pain as the people they scammed, but I'm not going to be terribly surprised if some of the greediest CEOs end up with a golden parachute and a house in Bermuda.
I keep talking about greed. What's greed? Upon consideration, I think the test is the word “enough.” When “enough” no longer has any meaning, we cross the line. Unfortunately, many individuals and many more companies have already crossed it.
This doesn't apply to me. I have enough moles. I have enough dandelions. I don't buy hedge funds. All I want to do is stretch out and have a little nap.
Better prone than conned.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Con Me(n)?
It 's a good thing The Bogus Economist gave up his garden (inside joke here). If he were still battling moles and dandelions, he couldn't explain to his countless readers the intricacies of the sub-prime market and the resultant worldwide semi-meltdown or the ins and outs of what victims call “Ponzi Schemes” and what the bunco squad calls Ponzis. Let's start with these.
In a front page story, the Willamette Week recently regaled readers with the tale of Wes Rhodes, an affable 63 year-old who is accused of separating roughly sixty investors from over twenty-four million dollars over a seven-year period. The method was tried and true, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission: Mr. Rhodes allegedly ran a classic Ponzi scheme.
For those who have never heard of Ponzis, they were named after a charming Italian immigrant named Charles Ponzi, who later earned a reputation as one of the great swindlers of all time. The way it works is getting lots of people to “invest” money, which is then used to pay dividends to those who have already “invested.” The operator uses the excess to have fun. By the time the money runs out, the last people on board get zilch and the operator is sunning himself on the Riviera.
“Sub-prime” loans, as opposed to Ponzis, are legal, although God knows why. Sub-primes come about when avaricious lenders, using a novel approach to free enterprise, make money available to folks whose credit-worthiness depends upon their ability to inhale and exhale. The lenders get the signatures on the dotted line, sell the loans to banks and mortgage companies and use the proceeds to make more pixie dust loans. Since for a long time home prices were going up, up, and up, people who didn't believe in gravity fueled the frenzy. Now that Newton is chuckling, “See, I told you so,” the frenzy is going in the opposite direction. Billions of dollars have vanished and lots of people don't have homes anymore.
Sub-prime borrowers and Ponzi victims have one major thing in common – for one reason or another, something overwhelmed good old common sense. Maybe they were conditioned by the number of “free” items being hawked in grocery stores, furniture establishments, magazines, media, electronic advertising and billboards. Everybody has been trained to think in terms of Something For Nothing. Whether we're talking about toilet paper rolls or national politics, we are told not to think in terms of what something costs, but of what we can get FREE if we just sign (or vote) here. Another factor is our growing inability to distinguish between what's real and what we want to think is real. Many folks refuse to believe John Wayne never served in the military or Saddam Hussein didn't attack the World Trade Center. We look for the pros, but not the cons. We see what we want to see.
Look at the “investors” who trusted their savings to Mr. Rhodes. These are not stupid people. They are primarily middle-class businessmen and women who wanted to feel their money was safe while earning incredible dividends, which were duly reported to them in monthly statements, says the WW. As long as the totals kept rising nicely, few “investors” asked questions about where the money was being parked. They saw the pros – not the cons.
As for the folks who thought they could get a 110% loan for a house while only having to fork over a small monthly payment after putting nothing down, we might reflect when people have been conditioned by million-dollar ads to think in terms of Something for Nothing, it's not unnatural to apply this to the American dream of owning a home. Regulators who were supposed to guard against excess were out to lunch. This is not to excuse buyers ignoring the cons. When you play the slot machines to win, you've got to realize you can also lose. For every person who bought what they hoped would be a secure future, there was a person who thought he was going to make a killing and become another Donald Trump. American dream or American greed, the rewards- and penalties – turned out to be the same.
Right now, the biggest difference in outcome is between the people who took the bait and the people who set the hooks. Some of the companies that profited most handsomely from “sub-prime” deals have already ducked into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. It's not unusual to want the scammers to feel as much pain as the people they scammed, but I'm not going to be terribly surprised if some of the greediest CEOs end up with a golden parachute and a house in Bermuda.
I keep talking about greed. What's greed? Upon consideration, I think the test is the word “enough.” When “enough” no longer has any meaning, we cross the line. Unfortunately, many individuals and many more companies have already crossed it.
This doesn't apply to me. I have enough moles. I have enough dandelions. I don't buy hedge funds. All I want to do is stretch out and have a little nap.
Better prone than conned.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
The Bogus Gardener
Vol.2 No. 68 August 3, 2007
The Bogus Gardener
(Formerly the Bogus Economist)
Good morning (afternoon, evening), ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the first class taught by the brand new incarnation of the Bogus Economist. Before we begin, I'd like to tell you why I decided to give up my prior passion. Frankly, economics was beginning to interfere with my sleep.
The last straw was the news item concerning President Bush's intention to veto a bill allocating thirty-five to fifty billion dollars (over five years) for medical care for children whose parents made too much for Medicaid, but not enough for private insurance. Despite the urging of such stalwart Bush supporters as Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the president held firm. The Wall Street Journal agreed, calling the bill “stealthy, slow-motion socialism.” The total cost of the program, covering about six and a half million kids, was equivalent to about four to six months' worth of Iraq..
If this is economics, I'm in the wrong field. One option was to discontinue the column, which would put a real crimp in my fun time. A better choice, perhaps, was to find another topic. Thanks to events like the recent Lincoln County Fair, the hottest thing I could think of to write about is nature's original green party – the family garden. Hence, welcome to the initial lecture by the Bogus Gardener.
The first thing you have to have for a successful garden is dirt. The best kind of dirt
is found in things like front or back yards. I happen to have a yard in Otis, which is known as the most prolific in the area for its bountiful yield of moles and dandelions. If you want to raise cute pets or start the world's cheapest flower market, therefore, you have come to the right place. If you do not like moles or dandelions, you'll need the following information:
Moles are very domestic animals. They hate to move, and when they do, it is seldom far away. The amazing new invention I bought to get rid of my moles electronically illustrates this. It's a gizmo you pound into the ground after inserting the proper batteries and, unheard, a high-frequency sound comes from the gizmo, travels through the earth and drives the moles nuts. Faced with the prospects of becoming completely unhinged, goes the theory, the moles will gather up their belongings and take off, preferably to the yard of the lady with the yippy dogs. That's the theory. In practice, the moles become annoyed and send out a call for friends and relatives to set up new residences. The result is a yard full of irritated moles.
Since I don't like the idea of poison, I researched “how to get rid of moles” on Google. What I found mostly concerned the kind of moles found in intelligence agencies or political campaigns, who also use electronic gizmos. So much for moles. How about dandelions?
If you don't want dandelions, my best advice is to pave your yard (I suggest concrete rather than blacktop). Digging up dandelions only encourages them. My wife loves to work in the garden and, after she's spent an hour or so filling a bucket with dandelions, I can sometimes hear them chortling as they plan their next foray. Diabolical things, dandelions.
One remedy for dandelions, which I found in an old gardening book on a discard pile adjacent to a dumpster, claimed the best way to get rid of one pest is to import another pest which will choke out the first one. I immediately thought of kudzu.
Kudzu is known as the weed that ate Georgia. About the only thing it missed was Congressman Zell Miller and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, both of whom are still alive and well. Miller made news in Macon, Georgia, when he declared abortion has contributed to the military's manpower shortage, the Social Security crisis and the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States. “How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last thirty years? Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We're too few because too many of our babies are being killed.” He made no mention of vetoing health care bills.
Gingrich, of course, achieved fame when it turned out he was so anxious to empathize with President Bill Clinton during the impeachment hearings that he got an intern of his own. He also served as role model for other moral leaders like Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, whose idea of recreation gave new meaning to the phrase, “Call me, Madam.”
Speaking of pests, I found out kudzu isn't impressed with the climate on our coast and has not proven a frequent visitor here. My research also discovered that you can get rid of snails by putting out a pie plate full of beer, into which the creatures ooze and eventually drown – smiling. My drawback is I seldom have beer left over for trivialities like snails. It dawns on me gardening isn't exactly my forte. Flowers may be fine for county fairs, but not for a writer seeking less stressful topics about which to be bogus. I'll return as an economist next column. The Bogus Gardener may return when his bananas ripen.
Class dismissed.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Gardener
(Formerly the Bogus Economist)
Good morning (afternoon, evening), ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the first class taught by the brand new incarnation of the Bogus Economist. Before we begin, I'd like to tell you why I decided to give up my prior passion. Frankly, economics was beginning to interfere with my sleep.
The last straw was the news item concerning President Bush's intention to veto a bill allocating thirty-five to fifty billion dollars (over five years) for medical care for children whose parents made too much for Medicaid, but not enough for private insurance. Despite the urging of such stalwart Bush supporters as Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the president held firm. The Wall Street Journal agreed, calling the bill “stealthy, slow-motion socialism.” The total cost of the program, covering about six and a half million kids, was equivalent to about four to six months' worth of Iraq..
If this is economics, I'm in the wrong field. One option was to discontinue the column, which would put a real crimp in my fun time. A better choice, perhaps, was to find another topic. Thanks to events like the recent Lincoln County Fair, the hottest thing I could think of to write about is nature's original green party – the family garden. Hence, welcome to the initial lecture by the Bogus Gardener.
The first thing you have to have for a successful garden is dirt. The best kind of dirt
is found in things like front or back yards. I happen to have a yard in Otis, which is known as the most prolific in the area for its bountiful yield of moles and dandelions. If you want to raise cute pets or start the world's cheapest flower market, therefore, you have come to the right place. If you do not like moles or dandelions, you'll need the following information:
Moles are very domestic animals. They hate to move, and when they do, it is seldom far away. The amazing new invention I bought to get rid of my moles electronically illustrates this. It's a gizmo you pound into the ground after inserting the proper batteries and, unheard, a high-frequency sound comes from the gizmo, travels through the earth and drives the moles nuts. Faced with the prospects of becoming completely unhinged, goes the theory, the moles will gather up their belongings and take off, preferably to the yard of the lady with the yippy dogs. That's the theory. In practice, the moles become annoyed and send out a call for friends and relatives to set up new residences. The result is a yard full of irritated moles.
Since I don't like the idea of poison, I researched “how to get rid of moles” on Google. What I found mostly concerned the kind of moles found in intelligence agencies or political campaigns, who also use electronic gizmos. So much for moles. How about dandelions?
If you don't want dandelions, my best advice is to pave your yard (I suggest concrete rather than blacktop). Digging up dandelions only encourages them. My wife loves to work in the garden and, after she's spent an hour or so filling a bucket with dandelions, I can sometimes hear them chortling as they plan their next foray. Diabolical things, dandelions.
One remedy for dandelions, which I found in an old gardening book on a discard pile adjacent to a dumpster, claimed the best way to get rid of one pest is to import another pest which will choke out the first one. I immediately thought of kudzu.
Kudzu is known as the weed that ate Georgia. About the only thing it missed was Congressman Zell Miller and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, both of whom are still alive and well. Miller made news in Macon, Georgia, when he declared abortion has contributed to the military's manpower shortage, the Social Security crisis and the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States. “How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last thirty years? Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We're too few because too many of our babies are being killed.” He made no mention of vetoing health care bills.
Gingrich, of course, achieved fame when it turned out he was so anxious to empathize with President Bill Clinton during the impeachment hearings that he got an intern of his own. He also served as role model for other moral leaders like Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, whose idea of recreation gave new meaning to the phrase, “Call me, Madam.”
Speaking of pests, I found out kudzu isn't impressed with the climate on our coast and has not proven a frequent visitor here. My research also discovered that you can get rid of snails by putting out a pie plate full of beer, into which the creatures ooze and eventually drown – smiling. My drawback is I seldom have beer left over for trivialities like snails. It dawns on me gardening isn't exactly my forte. Flowers may be fine for county fairs, but not for a writer seeking less stressful topics about which to be bogus. I'll return as an economist next column. The Bogus Gardener may return when his bananas ripen.
Class dismissed.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Hen3ry
Vol. 2 No. 68 July 20, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Hen3ry
One of the games columnists play is a variation on hide-and-seek where the columnist tries to hide from armies of lawyers trying to nail defamation suits on him. Every time a writer uses a name in a fictional context, he or she had better be sure every effort is made to make clear any resemblance to any actual persons, “living or dead, is purely coincidental.”
Naturally, when people slaving away at a computer are really sure of what they're talking about, they can use names like William Jefferson (money) or Mark Foley (sex) with impunity.. They can also say just about anything about Osama bin Laden, Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro since nobody in government is going to complain about it and bin Laden's lawyers aren't likely to file suit. Cartoonists can also get away with a lot, as Gary Trudeau has so conclusively proven with his adventures of Mike Doonesbury and friends.
It's when people like me try to be wiseguys that the game gets serious. Not that I suspect large law firms in Portland or Seattle are eagerly awaiting my next column in order to scan it for possibly libelous statements, but if I happen to say that some person named Ezekiel Worg is a half-wit and there really is an Ezekiel Worg who happens to have a reputation as a minor genius in his community, Mr. Worg might be tempted to ask his lawyer to give me a call.
To avoid this, I've generally prefaced my names with the word “imaginary” or “fictitious.” For all I knew, there might have actually been a lady named Valley who happened to live in The Dalles or a priest named Brothers who lived in Sisters. Legal action is less likely to happen when I use names like Upchuck or Pfazzbazz, but this opens me up to ridicule as being a congenital idiot, which I deny.
There is one remaining option, first used by the former Harvard math professor and song writer Tom Lehrer, whose “Vatican Rag” caused a major religious debate. He tells about a person who was so unconventional he called himself Hen3ry with the “3” being silent. Using this device, one could disguise our current Attorney General as Alberto Gon5zales with absolutely no fear of legal action on the grounds that no telephone book in the world would have a listing under “Gon5zales.” At the same time, people would get a pretty good idea whom you were talking about. The same goes for Con4doleeza Ric9e.
Yes, there are downsides. The name “Clin10” sounds too close for comfort. So does “G8tes.” On the other hand, a writer might not have to worry about using “Dr. Eric Ker2oack,” the guy Mr. Bush named Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, or, as the media dubbed him, “Birth Control Czar.” This worthy gentleman was known for presenting PowerPoint presentations using Loony Tunes characters to illustrate his theory that premarital sex can damage the female brain, making non-abstinent women incapable of forming emotional bonds. He has since resigned. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of people are resigning lately. Some feel the number should be increased.
Although Lehrer might have hit on a genuine refuge from lawyers, it is nonetheless always a mistake to underestimate the ingenuity of the legal profession. A group of sufficiently highly paid attorneys, for instance, might be able to make mincemeat of writers who pictured a character named Par7is Hil6ton, whose early tear-stained release from the hoosegow precipitated a near-revolt among the peasants, who didn't consider confinement to her Hollywood mansion a particularly harsh punishment. The rumor she was about to throw a series of house parties led to a reversal of her sentence and a dramatic kicking and screaming Par7is shouting, “It's not fair!!”
There is a temptation, not confined to the Bogus Economist, to be cruelly and absolutely unfair to Ms Hilton, who has subsequently turned to God and Barbara Walters (in that order) to lay out her new purposes in life. There's an alluring opportunity to pile on “Scoo00tter” Libby, whose bail has now been paid and for whom all that remains is peaceful probation. It's even more of a temptation to add another kick to the semi-recumbent figure of George W. Bush, whose own party is doing everything but putting on track shoes to distance itself from their leader. That people succumb to these temptations is a sad reflection on the vindictive nature of man.
Bravely, then, the Bogus Economist has determined to resist this deplorable tendency and report only confirmed facts about people in both the political and entertainment industries – or, in this election season – both. I shall not refer to Rudy Guil8iani's marital woes or John Ed9ward's hair. I shall fight for fairness in mentioning Fred Thomp3son's lack of military service as well as the immense wealth of the other candidates, currently estimated at half a billion dollars, about a tenth of Michael Bloom$berg's by itself. Above all, I shall be wary of making comments about Rich%^@#ard Che*^&%ney.
However, if I do, I'll be sure to add that any resemblance to Darth Vader or Voldemort is purely coincidental.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Hen3ry
One of the games columnists play is a variation on hide-and-seek where the columnist tries to hide from armies of lawyers trying to nail defamation suits on him. Every time a writer uses a name in a fictional context, he or she had better be sure every effort is made to make clear any resemblance to any actual persons, “living or dead, is purely coincidental.”
Naturally, when people slaving away at a computer are really sure of what they're talking about, they can use names like William Jefferson (money) or Mark Foley (sex) with impunity.. They can also say just about anything about Osama bin Laden, Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro since nobody in government is going to complain about it and bin Laden's lawyers aren't likely to file suit. Cartoonists can also get away with a lot, as Gary Trudeau has so conclusively proven with his adventures of Mike Doonesbury and friends.
It's when people like me try to be wiseguys that the game gets serious. Not that I suspect large law firms in Portland or Seattle are eagerly awaiting my next column in order to scan it for possibly libelous statements, but if I happen to say that some person named Ezekiel Worg is a half-wit and there really is an Ezekiel Worg who happens to have a reputation as a minor genius in his community, Mr. Worg might be tempted to ask his lawyer to give me a call.
To avoid this, I've generally prefaced my names with the word “imaginary” or “fictitious.” For all I knew, there might have actually been a lady named Valley who happened to live in The Dalles or a priest named Brothers who lived in Sisters. Legal action is less likely to happen when I use names like Upchuck or Pfazzbazz, but this opens me up to ridicule as being a congenital idiot, which I deny.
There is one remaining option, first used by the former Harvard math professor and song writer Tom Lehrer, whose “Vatican Rag” caused a major religious debate. He tells about a person who was so unconventional he called himself Hen3ry with the “3” being silent. Using this device, one could disguise our current Attorney General as Alberto Gon5zales with absolutely no fear of legal action on the grounds that no telephone book in the world would have a listing under “Gon5zales.” At the same time, people would get a pretty good idea whom you were talking about. The same goes for Con4doleeza Ric9e.
Yes, there are downsides. The name “Clin10” sounds too close for comfort. So does “G8tes.” On the other hand, a writer might not have to worry about using “Dr. Eric Ker2oack,” the guy Mr. Bush named Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, or, as the media dubbed him, “Birth Control Czar.” This worthy gentleman was known for presenting PowerPoint presentations using Loony Tunes characters to illustrate his theory that premarital sex can damage the female brain, making non-abstinent women incapable of forming emotional bonds. He has since resigned. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of people are resigning lately. Some feel the number should be increased.
Although Lehrer might have hit on a genuine refuge from lawyers, it is nonetheless always a mistake to underestimate the ingenuity of the legal profession. A group of sufficiently highly paid attorneys, for instance, might be able to make mincemeat of writers who pictured a character named Par7is Hil6ton, whose early tear-stained release from the hoosegow precipitated a near-revolt among the peasants, who didn't consider confinement to her Hollywood mansion a particularly harsh punishment. The rumor she was about to throw a series of house parties led to a reversal of her sentence and a dramatic kicking and screaming Par7is shouting, “It's not fair!!”
There is a temptation, not confined to the Bogus Economist, to be cruelly and absolutely unfair to Ms Hilton, who has subsequently turned to God and Barbara Walters (in that order) to lay out her new purposes in life. There's an alluring opportunity to pile on “Scoo00tter” Libby, whose bail has now been paid and for whom all that remains is peaceful probation. It's even more of a temptation to add another kick to the semi-recumbent figure of George W. Bush, whose own party is doing everything but putting on track shoes to distance itself from their leader. That people succumb to these temptations is a sad reflection on the vindictive nature of man.
Bravely, then, the Bogus Economist has determined to resist this deplorable tendency and report only confirmed facts about people in both the political and entertainment industries – or, in this election season – both. I shall not refer to Rudy Guil8iani's marital woes or John Ed9ward's hair. I shall fight for fairness in mentioning Fred Thomp3son's lack of military service as well as the immense wealth of the other candidates, currently estimated at half a billion dollars, about a tenth of Michael Bloom$berg's by itself. Above all, I shall be wary of making comments about Rich%^@#ard Che*^&%ney.
However, if I do, I'll be sure to add that any resemblance to Darth Vader or Voldemort is purely coincidental.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, July 06, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 66 July 6, 2007
The Bogus Economist
This or That
Every time I start a column intending to be bright and cheerful, something always comes up to derail me and eight out of ten times the trouble starts in the White House.
This time, I was just beginning a bright and cheerful column about the Glorious Fourth, the fun-filled summer flow of traffic in Lincoln City, the joys of parking in Newport and the return of the thirty cent a gallon gap between gas prices on the Coast and Dundee when I was rudely interrupted by the news the Vice President of the United States can't decide which branch of government he's in.
When Mr. Cheney and a group of oil company executives met allegedly to write our energy policy, Mr. Cheney refused to tell us who they were on the grounds of executive privilege, which was evidently conferred on him by Mr. Bush, who had it by authority of the Constitution. Being the number two executive, said the VP, he didn't have to tell anybody anything.
Last week, the attractive and personable White House spokesperson for Mr. Cheney, Dana Perino, told an incredulous press corps that the Vice President could ignore a congressional subpoena because he really was not a member of the executive branch. Since the Constitution said he was the president of the Senate, went the argument, he was basically in the legislative branch. Which was it? "I think that's an interesting constitutional question, and I think that lots of people can debate it," Ms Perino said. Yes, indeed.
Some members of Congress predictably exploded with frustration. "He's acting as if he's unaccountable -- a whole fourth branch of government unto himself. So my view is if you're not in the executive branch we shouldn't fund you as the executive branch," Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois.) said. The Vice President's spokeswoman accused Emanuel of "playing politics.” Who would know better?
If Mr. Cheney doesn't have to tell anybody about anything because he's in whatever branch of government he decides to be at the moment, I assume since he has to make decisions on which pair of pants to wear every morning, he can also be in the judicial branch. Whatever his reasoning, the result is the American people don't know about the influence of the oil industry on our gas prices – or very much about anything else. The Fourth of July holiday might be a good time to reflect on what that means.
I'm old-fashioned enough still to like the song, “It's Got to be This or That.” Either Mr. Cheney is in the executive branch or he isn't. I don't like ambiguity, especially about the people who are supposed to lead us. In fairness, however, I have to admit this seeming doublethink isn't just confined to the White House. It's getting to the point where everybody's doing it.
As I write, the Congress has killed the immigration bill. One reason for its death had to do with allowing heads of households to bring spouses and children into the country. Without taking sides, I have to wonder how many people who voted against it are also those who promote “family values.” Are family values strictly for Americans? Yes or no.
Over the years, we've given and sold armaments to El Qaeda when they were fighting the Soviets on the basis of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Now, there is a move afoot to provide arms to the Sunni forces in Iraq if they will promise to shoot only at El Queda and not at us. Are the former members of Saddam Hussein's army good guys or bad guys?
Rev. Charles Busch, retired minister of the First Congregational Church in Lincoln City, is trying to promote a Peace Camp for adults, as he has already done successfully with children. Do we really want peace? Would we rather turn the other cheek or kick butt? Do we like to see problems solved with reason or with fists?
Do we complain about pollution or will we start driving more efficient cars? Do we want fewer kids to develop Type II diabetes or will we insist on better nutrition? Are we happy with our health care system or will we change it? Do we sit at home and gripe about the government or will we vote to make it better? It's one or the other. We're in charge. If we're not, then why have a holiday?
I've been in a lot of pretty fierce debates about whether living in a dictatorship or a democracy is easier. It's certainly less of a strain when the government does your thinking for you. The downside is the same government usually ends up deciding not only how and where you'll be buried, but when. If I give up choice, I give up just about everything else. This is what I like about independence – as in Independence Day. Think for Yourself Day.
We can't have our future both ways. We'll do something about poverty or we won't. We either believe in freedom or we don't. We'll survive or we won't. Got to be this or that.
And this is what happens when a bright and cheerful column runs amok. Have a great holiday!!
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
This or That
Every time I start a column intending to be bright and cheerful, something always comes up to derail me and eight out of ten times the trouble starts in the White House.
This time, I was just beginning a bright and cheerful column about the Glorious Fourth, the fun-filled summer flow of traffic in Lincoln City, the joys of parking in Newport and the return of the thirty cent a gallon gap between gas prices on the Coast and Dundee when I was rudely interrupted by the news the Vice President of the United States can't decide which branch of government he's in.
When Mr. Cheney and a group of oil company executives met allegedly to write our energy policy, Mr. Cheney refused to tell us who they were on the grounds of executive privilege, which was evidently conferred on him by Mr. Bush, who had it by authority of the Constitution. Being the number two executive, said the VP, he didn't have to tell anybody anything.
Last week, the attractive and personable White House spokesperson for Mr. Cheney, Dana Perino, told an incredulous press corps that the Vice President could ignore a congressional subpoena because he really was not a member of the executive branch. Since the Constitution said he was the president of the Senate, went the argument, he was basically in the legislative branch. Which was it? "I think that's an interesting constitutional question, and I think that lots of people can debate it," Ms Perino said. Yes, indeed.
Some members of Congress predictably exploded with frustration. "He's acting as if he's unaccountable -- a whole fourth branch of government unto himself. So my view is if you're not in the executive branch we shouldn't fund you as the executive branch," Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois.) said. The Vice President's spokeswoman accused Emanuel of "playing politics.” Who would know better?
If Mr. Cheney doesn't have to tell anybody about anything because he's in whatever branch of government he decides to be at the moment, I assume since he has to make decisions on which pair of pants to wear every morning, he can also be in the judicial branch. Whatever his reasoning, the result is the American people don't know about the influence of the oil industry on our gas prices – or very much about anything else. The Fourth of July holiday might be a good time to reflect on what that means.
I'm old-fashioned enough still to like the song, “It's Got to be This or That.” Either Mr. Cheney is in the executive branch or he isn't. I don't like ambiguity, especially about the people who are supposed to lead us. In fairness, however, I have to admit this seeming doublethink isn't just confined to the White House. It's getting to the point where everybody's doing it.
As I write, the Congress has killed the immigration bill. One reason for its death had to do with allowing heads of households to bring spouses and children into the country. Without taking sides, I have to wonder how many people who voted against it are also those who promote “family values.” Are family values strictly for Americans? Yes or no.
Over the years, we've given and sold armaments to El Qaeda when they were fighting the Soviets on the basis of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Now, there is a move afoot to provide arms to the Sunni forces in Iraq if they will promise to shoot only at El Queda and not at us. Are the former members of Saddam Hussein's army good guys or bad guys?
Rev. Charles Busch, retired minister of the First Congregational Church in Lincoln City, is trying to promote a Peace Camp for adults, as he has already done successfully with children. Do we really want peace? Would we rather turn the other cheek or kick butt? Do we like to see problems solved with reason or with fists?
Do we complain about pollution or will we start driving more efficient cars? Do we want fewer kids to develop Type II diabetes or will we insist on better nutrition? Are we happy with our health care system or will we change it? Do we sit at home and gripe about the government or will we vote to make it better? It's one or the other. We're in charge. If we're not, then why have a holiday?
I've been in a lot of pretty fierce debates about whether living in a dictatorship or a democracy is easier. It's certainly less of a strain when the government does your thinking for you. The downside is the same government usually ends up deciding not only how and where you'll be buried, but when. If I give up choice, I give up just about everything else. This is what I like about independence – as in Independence Day. Think for Yourself Day.
We can't have our future both ways. We'll do something about poverty or we won't. We either believe in freedom or we don't. We'll survive or we won't. Got to be this or that.
And this is what happens when a bright and cheerful column runs amok. Have a great holiday!!
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wreckonomics
Vol. 2 No. 67 June 22, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Wreckonomics
One of my prime ambitions ever since I was a little bogus economist was to coin a word. The idea of having my very own word, which people could quote with the preface, ”As the Bogus Economist called it...,” stoked my ambition.
I first tried my hand at coinage when I observed a politician who kept changing positions was indulging in “flippage.” My friends kindly mocked me and suggested I send the word to International House of Pancakes. My second attempt was the “bubble-up” method of wealth distribution, which substituted the “trickle down” philosophy of giving lots more money to the rich (so that it would eventually reach the poor) with a system of letting the poor and middle class keep more money, which would eventually reach the rich. Derision.
In 2000, I wrote a paper describing a government where large multi-national companies were the “citizens” and laws were made to further their interests and protect their rights. This government I called “corpocracy,” which I thought was a superb word and which I really thought would immortalize my contribution to the language. Alas, no. Professor Charles Derber of Boston College beat me to it. A Google search lately turned up 37,000 hits – hardly a unique contribution.
My latest effort doesn't seem to be going anywhere, either. After looking at the shambles that passes as our economic policy, with its nine trillion dollar debt and incredible gap between the top and bottom brackets, I dubbed it “wreckonomics.” Not bad, I thought. Google struck again – 1330 hits.
Was there no new word for me to coin? The Oregonian didn't help me one bit. In a front page article, I learned that Oregon's corporate tax has remained the same since 1931. Further, the share of the tax burden paid by corporations has gone from eleven percent in the 1980's to five percent today. No fewer than twenty-six corporations with Oregon profits of one million dollars or more paid just ten dollars in taxes, according to the big “O.” I went back to “wreckonomics.”
If a corporation could make a million and only pay ten bucks, how about me? All I had to do was get a job that paid that much. The Help Wanted section of the Oregonian had no jobs paying anywhere near a million and neither did the News-Times. I even asked others (who made up my “support group”) whether they knew of any openings. Nada. So, since I couldn't get a million-dollar job, I had to find out how the ratio of ten bucks to one million worked out when it came to everyday incomes.
Well, if people paid the same rate as some corporations, Harry and Madge Upchuck, making $50,000 a year , would have an Oregon tax burden of fifty cents. Most of us could dredge this up without taking out a bank loan. A person we shall name Charlie, earning Oregon's minimum wage of $7.80 an hour, would make $16,224 a year and pay a whopping sixteen cents or so in taxes. But that's not the way it works.
Oregon taxes actually would take nine percent of the Upchucks' taxable income. Even if this were only half their gross income, they'd pay $2,250. Using the same formula, the twenty-six corporations mentioned by the Oregonian would each owe $45,000 to Aunt Salem. As I compute it, the tax code – which has been unchanged since 1931, you'll recall – has been shortchanging our aunt about $44,990 per corporation yearly. Poor old Charlie would have to allow around $730 bucks (using the same formula) to pay his taxes, about 4500 times the corporate rate. Some of this money would be used to help pay their taxes.
So back to wreckonomics. After Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, it might seem “trickle down” isn't quite trickling down to where it's supposed to trickle (down). The Internal Revenue Service shows the top one percent of Americans, with incomes of more than $348,000, received (in 2005) their largest share of national income since 1928; the top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached record levels of income share. While total reported income in US increased almost nine percent in 2005, average “real” incomes for those in bottom ninety percent dipped slightly compared with 2004, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent. Gains went largely to the top one percent, whose incomes rose to average of more than $1.1 million each with an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.
Sorry to make your eyes glaze over, but that's what economists are supposed to do. Being bogus, I can shorten it: the system stinks. It's not that there's anything wrong with getting rich and having lots of money to buy condos which, in the words of the advertisement, “start at an affordable $2,500,000.” It's the stacking of the deck I object to. The swiss cheese tax code carefully engineered in federal and state legislatures by those who have the most to gain has to stop and the way to stop it is to decide you're mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. Take your pen in hand and demand change.
You can coin any words you'd like. Or just use the old ones.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Wreckonomics
One of my prime ambitions ever since I was a little bogus economist was to coin a word. The idea of having my very own word, which people could quote with the preface, ”As the Bogus Economist called it...,” stoked my ambition.
I first tried my hand at coinage when I observed a politician who kept changing positions was indulging in “flippage.” My friends kindly mocked me and suggested I send the word to International House of Pancakes. My second attempt was the “bubble-up” method of wealth distribution, which substituted the “trickle down” philosophy of giving lots more money to the rich (so that it would eventually reach the poor) with a system of letting the poor and middle class keep more money, which would eventually reach the rich. Derision.
In 2000, I wrote a paper describing a government where large multi-national companies were the “citizens” and laws were made to further their interests and protect their rights. This government I called “corpocracy,” which I thought was a superb word and which I really thought would immortalize my contribution to the language. Alas, no. Professor Charles Derber of Boston College beat me to it. A Google search lately turned up 37,000 hits – hardly a unique contribution.
My latest effort doesn't seem to be going anywhere, either. After looking at the shambles that passes as our economic policy, with its nine trillion dollar debt and incredible gap between the top and bottom brackets, I dubbed it “wreckonomics.” Not bad, I thought. Google struck again – 1330 hits.
Was there no new word for me to coin? The Oregonian didn't help me one bit. In a front page article, I learned that Oregon's corporate tax has remained the same since 1931. Further, the share of the tax burden paid by corporations has gone from eleven percent in the 1980's to five percent today. No fewer than twenty-six corporations with Oregon profits of one million dollars or more paid just ten dollars in taxes, according to the big “O.” I went back to “wreckonomics.”
If a corporation could make a million and only pay ten bucks, how about me? All I had to do was get a job that paid that much. The Help Wanted section of the Oregonian had no jobs paying anywhere near a million and neither did the News-Times. I even asked others (who made up my “support group”) whether they knew of any openings. Nada. So, since I couldn't get a million-dollar job, I had to find out how the ratio of ten bucks to one million worked out when it came to everyday incomes.
Well, if people paid the same rate as some corporations, Harry and Madge Upchuck, making $50,000 a year , would have an Oregon tax burden of fifty cents. Most of us could dredge this up without taking out a bank loan. A person we shall name Charlie, earning Oregon's minimum wage of $7.80 an hour, would make $16,224 a year and pay a whopping sixteen cents or so in taxes. But that's not the way it works.
Oregon taxes actually would take nine percent of the Upchucks' taxable income. Even if this were only half their gross income, they'd pay $2,250. Using the same formula, the twenty-six corporations mentioned by the Oregonian would each owe $45,000 to Aunt Salem. As I compute it, the tax code – which has been unchanged since 1931, you'll recall – has been shortchanging our aunt about $44,990 per corporation yearly. Poor old Charlie would have to allow around $730 bucks (using the same formula) to pay his taxes, about 4500 times the corporate rate. Some of this money would be used to help pay their taxes.
So back to wreckonomics. After Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, it might seem “trickle down” isn't quite trickling down to where it's supposed to trickle (down). The Internal Revenue Service shows the top one percent of Americans, with incomes of more than $348,000, received (in 2005) their largest share of national income since 1928; the top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached record levels of income share. While total reported income in US increased almost nine percent in 2005, average “real” incomes for those in bottom ninety percent dipped slightly compared with 2004, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent. Gains went largely to the top one percent, whose incomes rose to average of more than $1.1 million each with an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.
Sorry to make your eyes glaze over, but that's what economists are supposed to do. Being bogus, I can shorten it: the system stinks. It's not that there's anything wrong with getting rich and having lots of money to buy condos which, in the words of the advertisement, “start at an affordable $2,500,000.” It's the stacking of the deck I object to. The swiss cheese tax code carefully engineered in federal and state legislatures by those who have the most to gain has to stop and the way to stop it is to decide you're mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. Take your pen in hand and demand change.
You can coin any words you'd like. Or just use the old ones.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 64 June 8, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Royal Mess
New czars are old news. It's been only about a month since President Bush solved his own unemployment crisis by naming Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, former Director of Operations for the Defense Department, the new “war czar,” and now you hardly hear a word about him. This is odd, since according to his job description, he's the man who'll represent the President in dealing with conflicts among the Pentagon, State Department and “other agencies” while the more important wars continue. Still, the front page is Lute-less. Nowadays the media are concentrating on Robert Zoellick, the man who will have to jam his feet into the tiny shoes of Paul “Romeo” Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
The press made a big deal of the array of four-star generals who politely told the President where he might put the job and the potential problems involved with a three-star general giving directions to four-star generals (a situation roughly similar to a vice-president ordering a president around – not a bad analogy). However, now the gurus have hashed over Gen. Lute's new position and moved on and I've still not heard any of them point out the most vexing question arising from his appointment: how about the Chain of Command?
The media, in its truly American tradition, put Gen. Lute's appointment in royal terms. The word “czar,” like the name “Caesar,” can be translated roughly as “king.” That makes Gen. Lute either “Czar Lute” or “King Douglas.” I think it's easier to pick the latter. Since King Douglas can give directions to the Defense and State Departments, according to presidential description, it seems only right these organizations should be headed by Prince Robert (Gates) and Princess Condoleeza (Rice). They, in turn, issue orders to General David Petraeus, the highly respected commander of our Iraq forces, which would make him at least a Duke – or is it Earl?
Going the other way, King Douglas reports to National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Once you get to “king,” there's not too much room on the up-side, so we'll have to name Hadley Emperor Stephen. Here's where it starts getting tricky. Emperor Steven has to get clearance from arguably the most important and powerful person in Washington – Vice-president Dick Cheney. Looking back in history, there's only one person an emperor willingly submitted to since Emperor Charlemagne knelt before Pope Leo III in the ninth century. So, even though Mr. Cheney is hard to picture as Pope, we could still keep the chain of commands by referring to him in small letters as “his holiness.” That leaves one more step.
Not even the most rabid right-winger would call Mr. Bush God, although some might think the death of the Reverend Jerry Falwell created a vacancy. Instead, we have to construct a hypothetical situation and see where it leads us:
Imagine Moqtada el-Sadr deciding it's time to lead an army or two to the Iraqi Parliament and try persuading Prime Minister Maliki to tell foreign forces to leave the country. Duke (Earl?) David gets on the phone to Prince Robert, who requests King Douglas to ask Emperor Stephen to inform his holiness that somebody has to tell somebody what to do. Whom does his holiness call? I've got it! He calls......THE DECIDER!
If your eyes are blurring a little by now, I fully understand. When you throw in Court Jester Tony Snow, what we have sounds like a new version of Nixon's Palace Guard. The whole idea of giving titles to coordinators who coordinate what should have been coordinated four years ago strikes many as absurd, probably because we know the remedy for fixing a regular mess isn't making it a royal mess.
Some situations require thought adjustment with the emphasis on thought – and adjustment. Since there hasn't been a notable amount of either on public display of late, the Bogus will take a chance and offer a couple of relatively simple remedies:
We might start by getting rid of the monarchy (note this well, media). The President feels we need somebody else to share the blame. This is called a scapegoat, not a czar. General Petraeus is just a general. Emperor Hadley is just a Steve and his holiness is just a - Richard. This doesn't mean there isn't room here and there for some royal touches. I can readily relish the coronation of Rose Princesses, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Queen Latifah or even someone formerly known as Prince. As far as our government, however, I'd just as soon stick with the concept of "Mr. President." At present, we have a man in the White House who has shown himself capable of screwing up just as badly as some of us have. Sure, the stakes are higher, but when our kids screw up, we tell them to admit it, apologize and try to do better. The least we can do is expect the same from ourselves and the people we pick to lead us.
If Russia got rid of its czars, we should be able to. As a mater of fact, we could show them how it should be done. As far as titles are concerned, with Fathers' Day coming up, that one is plenty for me
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Royal Mess
New czars are old news. It's been only about a month since President Bush solved his own unemployment crisis by naming Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, former Director of Operations for the Defense Department, the new “war czar,” and now you hardly hear a word about him. This is odd, since according to his job description, he's the man who'll represent the President in dealing with conflicts among the Pentagon, State Department and “other agencies” while the more important wars continue. Still, the front page is Lute-less. Nowadays the media are concentrating on Robert Zoellick, the man who will have to jam his feet into the tiny shoes of Paul “Romeo” Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
The press made a big deal of the array of four-star generals who politely told the President where he might put the job and the potential problems involved with a three-star general giving directions to four-star generals (a situation roughly similar to a vice-president ordering a president around – not a bad analogy). However, now the gurus have hashed over Gen. Lute's new position and moved on and I've still not heard any of them point out the most vexing question arising from his appointment: how about the Chain of Command?
The media, in its truly American tradition, put Gen. Lute's appointment in royal terms. The word “czar,” like the name “Caesar,” can be translated roughly as “king.” That makes Gen. Lute either “Czar Lute” or “King Douglas.” I think it's easier to pick the latter. Since King Douglas can give directions to the Defense and State Departments, according to presidential description, it seems only right these organizations should be headed by Prince Robert (Gates) and Princess Condoleeza (Rice). They, in turn, issue orders to General David Petraeus, the highly respected commander of our Iraq forces, which would make him at least a Duke – or is it Earl?
Going the other way, King Douglas reports to National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Once you get to “king,” there's not too much room on the up-side, so we'll have to name Hadley Emperor Stephen. Here's where it starts getting tricky. Emperor Steven has to get clearance from arguably the most important and powerful person in Washington – Vice-president Dick Cheney. Looking back in history, there's only one person an emperor willingly submitted to since Emperor Charlemagne knelt before Pope Leo III in the ninth century. So, even though Mr. Cheney is hard to picture as Pope, we could still keep the chain of commands by referring to him in small letters as “his holiness.” That leaves one more step.
Not even the most rabid right-winger would call Mr. Bush God, although some might think the death of the Reverend Jerry Falwell created a vacancy. Instead, we have to construct a hypothetical situation and see where it leads us:
Imagine Moqtada el-Sadr deciding it's time to lead an army or two to the Iraqi Parliament and try persuading Prime Minister Maliki to tell foreign forces to leave the country. Duke (Earl?) David gets on the phone to Prince Robert, who requests King Douglas to ask Emperor Stephen to inform his holiness that somebody has to tell somebody what to do. Whom does his holiness call? I've got it! He calls......THE DECIDER!
If your eyes are blurring a little by now, I fully understand. When you throw in Court Jester Tony Snow, what we have sounds like a new version of Nixon's Palace Guard. The whole idea of giving titles to coordinators who coordinate what should have been coordinated four years ago strikes many as absurd, probably because we know the remedy for fixing a regular mess isn't making it a royal mess.
Some situations require thought adjustment with the emphasis on thought – and adjustment. Since there hasn't been a notable amount of either on public display of late, the Bogus will take a chance and offer a couple of relatively simple remedies:
We might start by getting rid of the monarchy (note this well, media). The President feels we need somebody else to share the blame. This is called a scapegoat, not a czar. General Petraeus is just a general. Emperor Hadley is just a Steve and his holiness is just a - Richard. This doesn't mean there isn't room here and there for some royal touches. I can readily relish the coronation of Rose Princesses, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Queen Latifah or even someone formerly known as Prince. As far as our government, however, I'd just as soon stick with the concept of "Mr. President." At present, we have a man in the White House who has shown himself capable of screwing up just as badly as some of us have. Sure, the stakes are higher, but when our kids screw up, we tell them to admit it, apologize and try to do better. The least we can do is expect the same from ourselves and the people we pick to lead us.
If Russia got rid of its czars, we should be able to. As a mater of fact, we could show them how it should be done. As far as titles are concerned, with Fathers' Day coming up, that one is plenty for me
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 62 May 25, 2007
The Bogus Economist
smart
Last year, a strange-looking creature began appearing on Oregon freeways and city streets – especially city streets. Resembling an egg with its back end chainsawed off, the thing drew stares, chuckles and even gasps from spectators as it went its seemingly carefree way.
This car - I'm sure you already guessed it was a car – is called the smart (NO CAPITALS) and is currently being manufactured by none other than Daimler-Chrysler and marketed by the well-known Penske organization, which has already shown it can compete in the truck rental business and now wants to demonstrate size isn't everything.
The smart (No Capitals) comes in several models overseas, where it has already passed the three-quarter of a million mark in sales. In the U.S., customers will start off with one, called the fortwo (no capitals). There's a good reason for this. If someone is looking for a vehicle that can take the kids out for a picnic, the fortwo is definitely not a good choice. Anything more than a couple of people, or one person and a large dog, along with some groceries, is overload. The people, or the dog, sit high enough to get a good view of the road and the overall effect is somewhat like a one-horse shay without the horse. A family car it's not.
The smart (no caps) began life in the fertile brain of Nicolas Hayek, the inventor of the Swatch (capitals O.K.), which many a boomer sported on their wrists in the heyday of watch fashions. Hayek took his idea to Mercedes-Benz, which became intrigued at the idea of getting into the innovative world of environmentally friendly, low-priced vehicles. Full development of the concept started in 1994 and the smart fortwo (N.C.) debuted at the Frankfurt Motor Show (IAA) in 1997. Germans were wowed. That same year, smart became a 100% owned subsidiary of Daimler-Benz AG. , which devoured Chrysler Corp the next year. This caused Daimler severe indigestion and Chrysler was subsequently spat up and then swallowed by Cerberus Capital Management last month. Note: the company is not to be confused with the three-headed dog of the same name entrusted in Greek mythology with guarding the entrance to Hell. Whatever, it's now got eighty percent of Chrysler Corporation.
Once the smart (nc) was announced, Mercedes first took on the question of safety. How, people asked, could a car looking more like a mobile bar of soap than a car survive in a collision with a determined bicyclist, let alone a Hummer? M-B had an answer: “The safety management system for all smart vehicles starts with the tridion safety cell,” says its website, “ This cell is designed to keep its occupants safe from harm. Made from three layers of reinforced steel at all strategic points, impact energy is distributed evenly through the safety cell.” (See smartcar.com).
Translated, this seems to mean that the Hummer will still probably come out on top, but you've got a better than even chance with the bicycle and probably with a lot of other less sturdily-constructed vehicles. A diagram shows the driver sitting in a kind of cage with what looks like roll bars on three sides. For an egg, it appeared impregnable.
Also, the smart (yes, I know) has a couple of extreme virtues that may make it the next vehicular iPod. First, a typical 20-foot parking space can comfortably accommodate two of them. In France, I saw three smarts parked cozily side by side in one parking space, facing the curb. In an age where a common sport is seeing how many spaces a normal car can occupy, this car might spell the difference between making your appointment and spending a month in jail for assault.
A second advantage of the new baby Mercedes is economy. A smart driver (no capitals needed) can get about 40 mpg, which can make a real difference in paying the rent or buying groceries, especially at current Mafia rates. Nor is the smart (i'm getting used to this) terribly expensive. The base model (the pure) starts at “under eleven thousand.” Going up, the passion (i'm not kidding) costs fourteen and the cabriolet sets you back seventeen or so. The Hummer costs lots more and is always capitalized.
So who's going to buy smarts (small letters)? Well, people who have to buck traffic jams in order to make a living and who are running out of choice adjectives on the way to work might want one. The Less-is-More crowd would take delight in rubbing the environmental ethic into the skins of Escalade owners, while an out of work basketball player, according to the smart ads, could drive happily with room to spare.
What seems sure is that Mercedes will start its program of familiarizing America with pures and passions starting this month. Three truckloads of them will be touring cities near you and you might even get a chance to drive one. Portland gets a look in September. Naturally, if you've put down a $100 refundable deposit, you'll have the first chance. A smart press release claims thousands have already done so. This includes at least one bogus economist. Whether or not we folks are playing it smart remains to be seen.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
smart
Last year, a strange-looking creature began appearing on Oregon freeways and city streets – especially city streets. Resembling an egg with its back end chainsawed off, the thing drew stares, chuckles and even gasps from spectators as it went its seemingly carefree way.
This car - I'm sure you already guessed it was a car – is called the smart (NO CAPITALS) and is currently being manufactured by none other than Daimler-Chrysler and marketed by the well-known Penske organization, which has already shown it can compete in the truck rental business and now wants to demonstrate size isn't everything.
The smart (No Capitals) comes in several models overseas, where it has already passed the three-quarter of a million mark in sales. In the U.S., customers will start off with one, called the fortwo (no capitals). There's a good reason for this. If someone is looking for a vehicle that can take the kids out for a picnic, the fortwo is definitely not a good choice. Anything more than a couple of people, or one person and a large dog, along with some groceries, is overload. The people, or the dog, sit high enough to get a good view of the road and the overall effect is somewhat like a one-horse shay without the horse. A family car it's not.
The smart (no caps) began life in the fertile brain of Nicolas Hayek, the inventor of the Swatch (capitals O.K.), which many a boomer sported on their wrists in the heyday of watch fashions. Hayek took his idea to Mercedes-Benz, which became intrigued at the idea of getting into the innovative world of environmentally friendly, low-priced vehicles. Full development of the concept started in 1994 and the smart fortwo (N.C.) debuted at the Frankfurt Motor Show (IAA) in 1997. Germans were wowed. That same year, smart became a 100% owned subsidiary of Daimler-Benz AG. , which devoured Chrysler Corp the next year. This caused Daimler severe indigestion and Chrysler was subsequently spat up and then swallowed by Cerberus Capital Management last month. Note: the company is not to be confused with the three-headed dog of the same name entrusted in Greek mythology with guarding the entrance to Hell. Whatever, it's now got eighty percent of Chrysler Corporation.
Once the smart (nc) was announced, Mercedes first took on the question of safety. How, people asked, could a car looking more like a mobile bar of soap than a car survive in a collision with a determined bicyclist, let alone a Hummer? M-B had an answer: “The safety management system for all smart vehicles starts with the tridion safety cell,” says its website, “ This cell is designed to keep its occupants safe from harm. Made from three layers of reinforced steel at all strategic points, impact energy is distributed evenly through the safety cell.” (See smartcar.com).
Translated, this seems to mean that the Hummer will still probably come out on top, but you've got a better than even chance with the bicycle and probably with a lot of other less sturdily-constructed vehicles. A diagram shows the driver sitting in a kind of cage with what looks like roll bars on three sides. For an egg, it appeared impregnable.
Also, the smart (yes, I know) has a couple of extreme virtues that may make it the next vehicular iPod. First, a typical 20-foot parking space can comfortably accommodate two of them. In France, I saw three smarts parked cozily side by side in one parking space, facing the curb. In an age where a common sport is seeing how many spaces a normal car can occupy, this car might spell the difference between making your appointment and spending a month in jail for assault.
A second advantage of the new baby Mercedes is economy. A smart driver (no capitals needed) can get about 40 mpg, which can make a real difference in paying the rent or buying groceries, especially at current Mafia rates. Nor is the smart (i'm getting used to this) terribly expensive. The base model (the pure) starts at “under eleven thousand.” Going up, the passion (i'm not kidding) costs fourteen and the cabriolet sets you back seventeen or so. The Hummer costs lots more and is always capitalized.
So who's going to buy smarts (small letters)? Well, people who have to buck traffic jams in order to make a living and who are running out of choice adjectives on the way to work might want one. The Less-is-More crowd would take delight in rubbing the environmental ethic into the skins of Escalade owners, while an out of work basketball player, according to the smart ads, could drive happily with room to spare.
What seems sure is that Mercedes will start its program of familiarizing America with pures and passions starting this month. Three truckloads of them will be touring cities near you and you might even get a chance to drive one. Portland gets a look in September. Naturally, if you've put down a $100 refundable deposit, you'll have the first chance. A smart press release claims thousands have already done so. This includes at least one bogus economist. Whether or not we folks are playing it smart remains to be seen.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 62 May 11, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Naughty, Naughty
Talk about not inhaling.
You all will recall the unforgettable statement from Bill Clinton about his experiences with marijuana in which he admitted its use, but claimed he just puffed on a joint, briefly held the smoke in his mouth and puffed it out. The press, along with a good portion of the public, snickered a bit and moved on to other things. Monica was to come later.
More recently, a choice news item concerning a Deputy Secretary of State popped up that was in the same category as Clinton's smoking, only, if possible, less likely. The person in question is Randall Tobias, whose name appeared in the records of alleged madam Deborah Jane Palfrey, currently under federal indictment on racketeering charges. It seems Ms Palfrey was in the business of providing very expensive, high-class ladies to people who desired feminine companionship. Tobias, while admitting he had some of these ladies up to his pad, claimed it was only "to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage." There had been "no sex," Tobias was quoted as saying. He added he didn't recall the girls' names and that it been like “ordering pizza.” At any rate, he handed in his resignation to Condoleeza. But that was only the Start of the Story.
The news that Palfrey had turned over her list of 15,000 or so clients to a major network brought more than a few shivers to a Capitol already in a high state of jitters over public perception of the government as a blend of Dilbert, Frankenstein and Bugs Bunny. Palfrey's attorney, Montgomery Sibley, said Friday that he has been contacted by five lawyers, asking whether their clients' names are on Palfrey's list. Some, Sibley said, have inquired about whether accommodations could be made to keep their identities private.
More revelations are in the offing, according to a story in the Washington Post. “The List” includes the names of some "very prominent people," as well as a number of women with "important and serious jobs who had worked as escorts for the firm.” Waiting for the other shoe to drop is now an all-consuming pastime. By the time this column is published, we should know what size.
What makes this story particularly interesting was Tobias' former job as head of U. S. foreign aid, which included his promise no precious American taxpayer dollar would go for anything that could conceivably support prostitution. This included banning funding aimed at making additional education and instruction available for shady ladies who wanted to improve their lot in life as well as providing birth control information to prevent pregnancy and AIDS infection. Tobias was the multi billion-dollar Administration voice against the world's oldest profession and had, as recently as four weeks ago, been congratulated by President Bush for a job well done – sort of another “Heck of a job, Brownie.” Others disagreed. The Indianapolis Star reported a recent American Foreign Service Association poll of 368 staff members at the Agency for International Development found only 21 percent thought Tobias had been doing a good job in getting resources for the agency and its workers. A .210 average isn't even good for Little League.
Now maybe it's true Mr. Tobias just hired a few young things to rub his back. Palfrey herself described her employees as being willing to dress up in costumes, play Monopoly in the nude and do all kinds of things, including massage, which, while perhaps potentially sexual in nature, weren't illegal. Be that as it may, the tremors experienced by both potentially revealed customers and providers around Washington is strong enough to shake martini glasses.
Cynics are seeing a pattern emerge. After Rush Limbaugh's admission of dependency on prescription drugs and Bill (The Book of Virtues) Bennett's revelation that he was hooked on gambling came Newt Gingrich's confession that he had been doing what Bill Clinton was doing during the time he was going after Bill Clinton. There seems to be a law whereby the habits of a person's personal life vary directly with the vehemence of the rhetoric used against them. Look at the folks who demonstrated an allergy to wearing a military uniform shouting the loudest for victory at all costs. Incidentally, the author of the military strategy known as “Shock and Awe,” Harlan K. Ullman, had his name on “The List.” He denies any involvement.
It would be more than stupid to say hypocrisy is something brand new, or that the present Washington bunch has a monopoly on it. Many of us recall the Reverend Jim and Tammy Baker and their tearful admission of a less-than-Christian pursuit of hard cash. It's always easier to point fingers at the other guy than finding the culprit in the bathroom mirror, but the consequences can be pretty awful. Then why do people do it?
I believe it's a matter of ego. The hypocrite thinks he or she is too smart for the people who probably don't have the intelligence to figure out whose hand is in the cookie jar. The other reason may be the politically popular Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not get caught.
Another one just did.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Naughty, Naughty
Talk about not inhaling.
You all will recall the unforgettable statement from Bill Clinton about his experiences with marijuana in which he admitted its use, but claimed he just puffed on a joint, briefly held the smoke in his mouth and puffed it out. The press, along with a good portion of the public, snickered a bit and moved on to other things. Monica was to come later.
More recently, a choice news item concerning a Deputy Secretary of State popped up that was in the same category as Clinton's smoking, only, if possible, less likely. The person in question is Randall Tobias, whose name appeared in the records of alleged madam Deborah Jane Palfrey, currently under federal indictment on racketeering charges. It seems Ms Palfrey was in the business of providing very expensive, high-class ladies to people who desired feminine companionship. Tobias, while admitting he had some of these ladies up to his pad, claimed it was only "to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage." There had been "no sex," Tobias was quoted as saying. He added he didn't recall the girls' names and that it been like “ordering pizza.” At any rate, he handed in his resignation to Condoleeza. But that was only the Start of the Story.
The news that Palfrey had turned over her list of 15,000 or so clients to a major network brought more than a few shivers to a Capitol already in a high state of jitters over public perception of the government as a blend of Dilbert, Frankenstein and Bugs Bunny. Palfrey's attorney, Montgomery Sibley, said Friday that he has been contacted by five lawyers, asking whether their clients' names are on Palfrey's list. Some, Sibley said, have inquired about whether accommodations could be made to keep their identities private.
More revelations are in the offing, according to a story in the Washington Post. “The List” includes the names of some "very prominent people," as well as a number of women with "important and serious jobs who had worked as escorts for the firm.” Waiting for the other shoe to drop is now an all-consuming pastime. By the time this column is published, we should know what size.
What makes this story particularly interesting was Tobias' former job as head of U. S. foreign aid, which included his promise no precious American taxpayer dollar would go for anything that could conceivably support prostitution. This included banning funding aimed at making additional education and instruction available for shady ladies who wanted to improve their lot in life as well as providing birth control information to prevent pregnancy and AIDS infection. Tobias was the multi billion-dollar Administration voice against the world's oldest profession and had, as recently as four weeks ago, been congratulated by President Bush for a job well done – sort of another “Heck of a job, Brownie.” Others disagreed. The Indianapolis Star reported a recent American Foreign Service Association poll of 368 staff members at the Agency for International Development found only 21 percent thought Tobias had been doing a good job in getting resources for the agency and its workers. A .210 average isn't even good for Little League.
Now maybe it's true Mr. Tobias just hired a few young things to rub his back. Palfrey herself described her employees as being willing to dress up in costumes, play Monopoly in the nude and do all kinds of things, including massage, which, while perhaps potentially sexual in nature, weren't illegal. Be that as it may, the tremors experienced by both potentially revealed customers and providers around Washington is strong enough to shake martini glasses.
Cynics are seeing a pattern emerge. After Rush Limbaugh's admission of dependency on prescription drugs and Bill (The Book of Virtues) Bennett's revelation that he was hooked on gambling came Newt Gingrich's confession that he had been doing what Bill Clinton was doing during the time he was going after Bill Clinton. There seems to be a law whereby the habits of a person's personal life vary directly with the vehemence of the rhetoric used against them. Look at the folks who demonstrated an allergy to wearing a military uniform shouting the loudest for victory at all costs. Incidentally, the author of the military strategy known as “Shock and Awe,” Harlan K. Ullman, had his name on “The List.” He denies any involvement.
It would be more than stupid to say hypocrisy is something brand new, or that the present Washington bunch has a monopoly on it. Many of us recall the Reverend Jim and Tammy Baker and their tearful admission of a less-than-Christian pursuit of hard cash. It's always easier to point fingers at the other guy than finding the culprit in the bathroom mirror, but the consequences can be pretty awful. Then why do people do it?
I believe it's a matter of ego. The hypocrite thinks he or she is too smart for the people who probably don't have the intelligence to figure out whose hand is in the cookie jar. The other reason may be the politically popular Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not get caught.
Another one just did.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Vol. 1 No. 61 April 27, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Help Wanted
In any discussion about welfare, you'll hear the guy on the Right say people don't want to work and the guy on the Left argue the reasons for this are the miserable status (and pay) of the jobs themselves. I have to side with the guy on the Right. I can show you a position with more status than Donald Trump has hair along with a sizable paycheck to boot. Yet this plum of a job is going begging because no American has come up so far with anything except “Sorry.”
My source is a story in the Washington Post claiming the President of the United States is looking for a person with deep military background to be “a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies.”
Talk about status. Here's a chance to get on the phone and tell Condoleeza Rice her seams are crooked or Defense Chief Robert Gates he needs a shave. As a bonus, he or she gets the unique opportunity to steer the Bush ship of state into Baghdad harbor (figuratively, of course) and proclaim “Mission Accomplished” - again. Plus, with this powerhouse of a job comes instant access to the Oval Office, escorts, assistants, probably a gigantic desk near a window and the chance to put “czar” before your name.
So how come the response so far is similar to that of gulping a glass of warm cod liver oil? At least three -and as many as five – retired folks with four stars on their retired collars have politely declined the czardom. These include, beside Marine Gen. John Sheehan, such military luminaries as Army Gen. Jack Keane and Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston. The only one who has explained his position so far is General Sheehan, who used a typical Marine directness. “The very fundamental issue is, “ said General Sheehan, “they don't know where the hell they're going.”
This seems to be a logical reason to just say “no,” although in General Sheehan's case, it's also understandable why he wouldn't want to chuck a job as an executive at Bechtel Corporation exploring Middle East oil supplies to do the much the same thing in the name of national securrity. As for the other fellows, they could simply desire to spend more time with their families. But Sheehan's statement that the people currently in charge can't find their rear ends with both hands is pretty serious. Does this reflect on the Commander-in-Chief?
After the WMD's, the “link with Al Queda,” Hurricane Katrina, the conviction of Scooter Libby, (truth problems), the latest presidential show of support for World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz (girlfriend problems) and embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (competence problems) , this is a distinct possibility. The new strategy of trying to find yet another person to coordinate the Middle East madhouse seems a bit like overkill. We now have Defense Secretary Gates, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and General John Petraeus, all of whom are more or less in charge. I suppose this is why they need coordination.
At least we have some idea what the White House ad could look like: “WANTED: Excellent candidate with people skills to take over as czar of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Lots of experience required, including, but not limited to, complete loyalty to the President in dealing with opposing views. Ability to recognize absence of vision, cohesion or financial responsibility not required. Dealing with people in Washington who don't know where the hell they're going is a must. Submit resumes as soon as possible,”
Don't get me wrong- the execution of the wars needs help. Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, released his latest report on the lessons hopefully learned in a campaign that threatens to cost a trillion dollars or more. According to a story in the Washington Post, it detailed a series of mistakes, delays and missed opportunities. The words “mistakes, delays and missed opportunities” have been heard before, but the blame seems to have wandered all over the place. Maybe it's looking for a new place to land.
The current belated Help Wanted sign by the White House isn't getting any takers because it's gone up about four years too late. We should have asked the U.N. for more advice before diving into waters about which we had very little information, a lot of it being wrong. We've been swimming in these waters with an increasing number of nasty sharks since 2003, and it may be time to climb out and get dry.
Whoever the next person in charge may be, he or she is going to have one heck of a job. This mess isn't going to be solved in four years – or four decades. We're facing the longest term rescue effort in our history. Not only will the next Chief Executive have to figure out how to reduce our nine trillion national debt, but also how to rebuild the damaged reputation of what once was the hope of the democratic world.
The “Help Wanted” sign is hung over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and it doesn't mean we need a czar. Just a leader.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Help Wanted
In any discussion about welfare, you'll hear the guy on the Right say people don't want to work and the guy on the Left argue the reasons for this are the miserable status (and pay) of the jobs themselves. I have to side with the guy on the Right. I can show you a position with more status than Donald Trump has hair along with a sizable paycheck to boot. Yet this plum of a job is going begging because no American has come up so far with anything except “Sorry.”
My source is a story in the Washington Post claiming the President of the United States is looking for a person with deep military background to be “a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies.”
Talk about status. Here's a chance to get on the phone and tell Condoleeza Rice her seams are crooked or Defense Chief Robert Gates he needs a shave. As a bonus, he or she gets the unique opportunity to steer the Bush ship of state into Baghdad harbor (figuratively, of course) and proclaim “Mission Accomplished” - again. Plus, with this powerhouse of a job comes instant access to the Oval Office, escorts, assistants, probably a gigantic desk near a window and the chance to put “czar” before your name.
So how come the response so far is similar to that of gulping a glass of warm cod liver oil? At least three -and as many as five – retired folks with four stars on their retired collars have politely declined the czardom. These include, beside Marine Gen. John Sheehan, such military luminaries as Army Gen. Jack Keane and Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston. The only one who has explained his position so far is General Sheehan, who used a typical Marine directness. “The very fundamental issue is, “ said General Sheehan, “they don't know where the hell they're going.”
This seems to be a logical reason to just say “no,” although in General Sheehan's case, it's also understandable why he wouldn't want to chuck a job as an executive at Bechtel Corporation exploring Middle East oil supplies to do the much the same thing in the name of national securrity. As for the other fellows, they could simply desire to spend more time with their families. But Sheehan's statement that the people currently in charge can't find their rear ends with both hands is pretty serious. Does this reflect on the Commander-in-Chief?
After the WMD's, the “link with Al Queda,” Hurricane Katrina, the conviction of Scooter Libby, (truth problems), the latest presidential show of support for World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz (girlfriend problems) and embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (competence problems) , this is a distinct possibility. The new strategy of trying to find yet another person to coordinate the Middle East madhouse seems a bit like overkill. We now have Defense Secretary Gates, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and General John Petraeus, all of whom are more or less in charge. I suppose this is why they need coordination.
At least we have some idea what the White House ad could look like: “WANTED: Excellent candidate with people skills to take over as czar of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Lots of experience required, including, but not limited to, complete loyalty to the President in dealing with opposing views. Ability to recognize absence of vision, cohesion or financial responsibility not required. Dealing with people in Washington who don't know where the hell they're going is a must. Submit resumes as soon as possible,”
Don't get me wrong- the execution of the wars needs help. Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, released his latest report on the lessons hopefully learned in a campaign that threatens to cost a trillion dollars or more. According to a story in the Washington Post, it detailed a series of mistakes, delays and missed opportunities. The words “mistakes, delays and missed opportunities” have been heard before, but the blame seems to have wandered all over the place. Maybe it's looking for a new place to land.
The current belated Help Wanted sign by the White House isn't getting any takers because it's gone up about four years too late. We should have asked the U.N. for more advice before diving into waters about which we had very little information, a lot of it being wrong. We've been swimming in these waters with an increasing number of nasty sharks since 2003, and it may be time to climb out and get dry.
Whoever the next person in charge may be, he or she is going to have one heck of a job. This mess isn't going to be solved in four years – or four decades. We're facing the longest term rescue effort in our history. Not only will the next Chief Executive have to figure out how to reduce our nine trillion national debt, but also how to rebuild the damaged reputation of what once was the hope of the democratic world.
The “Help Wanted” sign is hung over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and it doesn't mean we need a czar. Just a leader.
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
